Marxism is a science

[Cian O'Connor]

I think you're talking about something else. Unless
I've read Scott very badly wrong, he's saying that
Marx's investigation was not a dispassionate objective
one. Rather Marx came with preconceived ideas about
morality, the way the world is, etc and tried to prove
them.

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