The problem with the objectivity of value, as I see it, is that objects and actions quite obviously have different value to different people. Unless one moves to a transactional world based upon something other than money, I can't really see any model other than the free market which can deal with this. And if there is a good replacement for money I'd love to know what it is.
--- James Heartfield <Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk>
wrote: > In message
>
<000c01c191ee$6988c6e0$0a7ba8c0 at hellodolly.hellodolly>,
> Scott
> Martens <sm at kiera.com> writes
>
> >Marxism's objectivity is another matter, and a more
> difficult one. But
> >since I question the absolute objectivity of the
> hard sciences, it's hardly
> >a slight on Marxism to think it isn't any more
> objective than physics is.
> >
>
> I'm not sure from what you write what the problem is
> with objectivity.
>
> I think in the case of Marx, objectivity was an
> important question, in,
> for example, his criticism of political economy,
> which was moving
> towards a subjective interpretation of value,
> whereas he wanted to argue
> that value was objective.
>
> So in the subjectivist version, value (not
> distinguished from price) is
> what the buyer is willing to pay.
>
> Marx by contrast seeks to abstract from the
> subjective intentions of
> buyer and seller to fathom an underlying objective
> value.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com