All true... but such thinking does create the motivation to get out of bed in the morning in order to carry out one's, whatever income providing, job that allows exchanges for those things. Neither someone like Henry Ford, nor bar owners, nor any of their employees would be the least bit interested in being remunerated for providing input in terms of their own output. Not only does it not create any surplus value, it's pretty much worthless to all of them. Just like individual investment is productively non-causative within an economy, so is individual labor. Materialist empiricism simply isn't relevant when the objective of providing full employment with a minimum of waste requires the balancing of a set of books. Perhaps it's time to wake up Charles. In the real world, just like capitalism, Marxism doesn't cut it either.
John V PS, sorry but being forced to use webmail these days I cannot make subject threading work. Any ideas? On 2015-05-28 10:25 AM, Charles Brown wrote: > > Actually , in rejecting the LTV, Robinson is a philosophical idealist , because it means she thinks use-values embodying exchange-value can come into existence without human labor . The LTV is pretty much self-evidently true for materialist empiricists . Henry Ford thinking of cars produces nary a car; a bar owner thinking about drinks produces nary a drink. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
