Re: real and virtual worlds

From: Andy Blunden (
Date: Sat Jan 10 2004 - 20:34:04 PST

this is an article I wrote about "Theories of Value" 5 or 6 years ago. My
main point I suppose was that critique of theories of value has to keep
pace with the production of theories of value by bourgeois economists. We
can't blame Marx for not doing that after all.


At 05:49 PM 10/01/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>Victor, thanks for the Grundrisse quote. I went back to review that
>section "(3) The Method of Political Economy." Marx is discussing his
>reasoning for how to present his analysis of capitalism in Capital. Some
>xmca'ers may be familiar with this section. Here, Marx discusses that
>formulation "rising from the abstract to the concrete, as in "... the
>method of rising from the abstract to the concrete is only the way in
>which thought appropriates the concrete, reproduces it as the concrete in
>the mind." (pg 101).
>I am still thinking, perhaps quite erroneously, that your update of Marx
>to the 21st Century is leaving behind his law of value as having become
>obsolete some time in the 20th. Just as the law of value (which refers to
>the measurement and exchange of abstract labor in terms of socially
>necessary labor time) is the foundation upon which Marx builds his
>analysis of capitalism, your interpretation of the measurement and
>exchange of abstract labor - and the law of value - must form the basis of
>yours. Or, at least, so a "paleo" (early) Marxist might argue. From this
>point of view, much of the other discussion of your proposals, for
>example, the question of full compensation for labor, the primacy or
>secondariness of profit, etc., hinges on this fundamental question of the
>source of value.
>- Steve

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST