Analytical marxism, John Roemer and equality of opportunity
I just found him. His methodology seems very similar to mine. He also has an interest to equality of opportunity.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism Exploitation
At the same time as Cohen was working on *Karl Marx's Theory of History*, American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics in order to try to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation> and class <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class>. In his *General Theory of Exploitation and Class* (1982), Roemer employed rational choice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice> and game theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory> in order to demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the idea that the labour theory of value<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value> was necessary for explaining exploitation and class. Value was in principle capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange. Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always imply a moral wrong (see section Justice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism#Justice> below). I am unfamiliar with his beliefs. I for example believe that the ownership of the means of production are those that create trading routes that allow the market exchange to magnify wealth inequality. I am uncertain though as to who is the victim of exploitation. I think that dependent on the ocassion both the consumer and the workers could be exploited. Even If it turns out that I disagree with him, He uses rationale choice theory to explain things like I do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory I wonder what happened to this school of thought, most importantly why it hasnt replaced marxism all together. I dont think that this theory is plagued with revisionism, It isnt difficult to avoid determinism while you keep using mathematical models. it has in fact better more concrete foundations than before. -- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
hi Apostolis, my impression is that the last 20 years, if not more, of critical economic (and philosophical) thinking have been to undermine rational choice theory in all sorts of ways ... and I personally don't know anybody that acts purely rationally, (and if he/she did, I would see it as a sign of pathology), if that is taken as the essence of rational theory; in my view, it strips human agency of all kinds of crucial embeddeness in structures and relations. On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
I just found him. His methodology seems very similar to mine. He also has an interest to equality of opportunity.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism Exploitation
At the same time as Cohen was working on *Karl Marx's Theory of History*, American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics in order to try to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation> and class <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class>. In his *General Theory of Exploitation and Class* (1982), Roemer employed rational choice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice> and game theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory> in order to demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the idea that the labour theory of value<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value> was necessary for explaining exploitation and class. Value was in principle capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange. Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always imply a moral wrong (see section Justice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism#Justice> below).
I am unfamiliar with his beliefs. I for example believe that the ownership of the means of production are those that create trading routes that allow the market exchange to magnify wealth inequality. I am uncertain though as to who is the victim of exploitation. I think that dependent on the ocassion both the consumer and the workers could be exploited.
Even If it turns out that I disagree with him, He uses rationale choice theory to explain things like I do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
I wonder what happened to this school of thought, most importantly why it hasnt replaced marxism all together. I dont think that this theory is plagued with revisionism, It isnt difficult to avoid determinism while you keep using mathematical models. it has in fact better more concrete foundations than before.
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
First, let me say that I just learned about rational choice theory and so it will be my interpretation of it that I will defend. It is important to deferentiate the theory and its results from the interpretation of the results. To this end, all your arguments refute interpretations that most of the time were malevolently made to moralize the unfair status quo. Evolutionary biology for example is a good science but it has been brutalized by many. We need to use the results, not discard them. But I have to take back what i said about analytical marxism replacing marxism. I can argue though that analytical Marxism is to Marxism what mathematics is to physics. The methodology of physicists is incomprehensive to me and my methodology is to them. But physics needs math and math needs physics for too many reasons. Physicists never stopped using math because some mathematician believe in idealism. Neither have mathematicians stopped taking intuition from the work of physicists because some physicists believe in empiricism. In conclution, analytical marxism doesnt strip human agency from structures and relations. It simply avoids to deal with the problem simply because the tools that analytical marxism uses are not able to solve it. Do you know that physicists right now use tools that are rejected by mathematicians simply because they dont have a logical framework to put them in? 2011/12/26 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
hi Apostolis,
my impression is that the last 20 years, if not more, of critical economic (and philosophical) thinking have been to undermine rational choice theory in all sorts of ways ... and I personally don't know anybody that acts purely rationally, (and if he/she did, I would see it as a sign of pathology), if that is taken as the essence of rational theory; in my view, it strips human agency of all kinds of crucial embeddeness in structures and relations.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
I just found him. His methodology seems very similar to mine. He also has an interest to equality of opportunity.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism Exploitation
At the same time as Cohen was working on *Karl Marx's Theory of History*, American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics in order to try to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation> and class <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class>. In his *General Theory of Exploitation and Class* (1982), Roemer employed rational choice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice> and game theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory> in order to demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the idea that the labour theory of value<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value> was necessary for explaining exploitation and class. Value was in principle capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange. Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always imply a moral wrong (see section Justice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism#Justice> below).
I am unfamiliar with his beliefs. I for example believe that the ownership of the means of production are those that create trading routes that allow the market exchange to magnify wealth inequality. I am uncertain though as to who is the victim of exploitation. I think that dependent on the ocassion both the consumer and the workers could be exploited.
Even If it turns out that I disagree with him, He uses rationale choice theory to explain things like I do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
I wonder what happened to this school of thought, most importantly why it hasnt replaced marxism all together. I dont think that this theory is plagued with revisionism, It isnt difficult to avoid determinism while you keep using mathematical models. it has in fact better more concrete foundations than before.
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
hi Apostolis, are you familiar with integral methodologies, these allow for temporary reductionisms, to see what they can yield, but always go back to the integrative interpretations in a more holistic fashion in contrast to staying with a reductionist approach and claiming it represents reality, Michel On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
First, let me say that I just learned about rational choice theory and so it will be my interpretation of it that I will defend.
It is important to deferentiate the theory and its results from the interpretation of the results. To this end, all your arguments refute interpretations that most of the time were malevolently made to moralize the unfair status quo.
Evolutionary biology for example is a good science but it has been brutalized by many. We need to use the results, not discard them.
But I have to take back what i said about analytical marxism replacing marxism.
I can argue though that analytical Marxism is to Marxism what mathematics is to physics. The methodology of physicists is incomprehensive to me and my methodology is to them. But physics needs math and math needs physics for too many reasons.
Physicists never stopped using math because some mathematician believe in idealism. Neither have mathematicians stopped taking intuition from the work of physicists because some physicists believe in empiricism.
In conclution, analytical marxism doesnt strip human agency from structures and relations. It simply avoids to deal with the problem simply because the tools that analytical marxism uses are not able to solve it. Do you know that physicists right now use tools that are rejected by mathematicians simply because they dont have a logical framework to put them in?
2011/12/26 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
hi Apostolis,
my impression is that the last 20 years, if not more, of critical economic (and philosophical) thinking have been to undermine rational choice theory in all sorts of ways ... and I personally don't know anybody that acts purely rationally, (and if he/she did, I would see it as a sign of pathology), if that is taken as the essence of rational theory; in my view, it strips human agency of all kinds of crucial embeddeness in structures and relations.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
I just found him. His methodology seems very similar to mine. He also has an interest to equality of opportunity.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism Exploitation
At the same time as Cohen was working on *Karl Marx's Theory of History*, American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics in order to try to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation> and class <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class>. In his *General Theory of Exploitation and Class* (1982), Roemer employed rational choice <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice> and game theory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory> in order to demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the idea that the labour theory of value<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value> was necessary for explaining exploitation and class. Value was in principle capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange. Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always imply a moral wrong (see section Justice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism#Justice> below).
I am unfamiliar with his beliefs. I for example believe that the ownership of the means of production are those that create trading routes that allow the market exchange to magnify wealth inequality. I am uncertain though as to who is the victim of exploitation. I think that dependent on the ocassion both the consumer and the workers could be exploited.
Even If it turns out that I disagree with him, He uses rationale choice theory to explain things like I do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
I wonder what happened to this school of thought, most importantly why it hasnt replaced marxism all together. I dont think that this theory is plagued with revisionism, It isnt difficult to avoid determinism while you keep using mathematical models. it has in fact better more concrete foundations than before.
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Thanks for the tip Michel. I googled it before but I am reluctant to any theory that talks about spirituality or metaphysics. Maybe I am prejudiced. I am ,though, a fun of Jon kabat-zinn and his meditation teachings because ,despite being insired by buddhism, he uses scientific methods. I havent read any of roemers work yet, but I still believe that using analytical methods, abstractions etc is a valuable tool that most marxists dont use out of fear. To make it more precise, if someone proves in an abstraction which doesnt take into account the superstructure or the reasons why people want what they want and where each person is represented by an utility function, that exploitation arises naturally due to the basic axiom of owning the products of his labor, then that proof will be a much stronger argument against this opressive system than any philosophical or sociological argument. 2011/12/27 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
hi Apostolis,
are you familiar with integral methodologies,
these allow for temporary reductionisms, to see what they can yield, but always go back to the integrative interpretations in a more holistic fashion
in contrast to staying with a reductionist approach and claiming it represents reality,
Michel
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
First, let me say that I just learned about rational choice theory and so it will be my interpretation of it that I will defend.
It is important to deferentiate the theory and its results from the interpretation of the results. To this end, all your arguments refute interpretations that most of the time were malevolently made to moralize the unfair status quo.
Evolutionary biology for example is a good science but it has been brutalized by many. We need to use the results, not discard them.
But I have to take back what i said about analytical marxism replacing marxism.
I can argue though that analytical Marxism is to Marxism what mathematics is to physics. The methodology of physicists is incomprehensive to me and my methodology is to them. But physics needs math and math needs physics for too many reasons.
Physicists never stopped using math because some mathematician believe in idealism. Neither have mathematicians stopped taking intuition from the work of physicists because some physicists believe in empiricism.
In conclution, analytical marxism doesnt strip human agency from structures and relations. It simply avoids to deal with the problem simply because the tools that analytical marxism uses are not able to solve it. Do you know that physicists right now use tools that are rejected by mathematicians simply because they dont have a logical framework to put them in?
2011/12/26 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
hi Apostolis,
my impression is that the last 20 years, if not more, of critical economic (and philosophical) thinking have been to undermine rational choice theory in all sorts of ways ... and I personally don't know anybody that acts purely rationally, (and if he/she did, I would see it as a sign of pathology), if that is taken as the essence of rational theory; in my view, it strips human agency of all kinds of crucial embeddeness in structures and relations.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
I just found him. His methodology seems very similar to mine. He also has an interest to equality of opportunity.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism Exploitation
At the same time as Cohen was working on *Karl Marx's Theory of History *, American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics in order to try to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation> and class <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class>. In his *General Theory of Exploitation and Class* (1982), Roemer employed rational choice <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice> and game theory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory> in order to demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the idea that the labour theory of value<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value> was necessary for explaining exploitation and class. Value was in principle capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange. Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always imply a moral wrong (see section Justice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism#Justice> below).
I am unfamiliar with his beliefs. I for example believe that the ownership of the means of production are those that create trading routes that allow the market exchange to magnify wealth inequality. I am uncertain though as to who is the victim of exploitation. I think that dependent on the ocassion both the consumer and the workers could be exploited.
Even If it turns out that I disagree with him, He uses rationale choice theory to explain things like I do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
I wonder what happened to this school of thought, most importantly why it hasnt replaced marxism all together. I dont think that this theory is plagued with revisionism, It isnt difficult to avoid determinism while you keep using mathematical models. it has in fact better more concrete foundations than before.
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
Integral theory doesn't necessarily entail a spiritual aspect, for example, in Critical Realism, one of the integral schools, a lot of practicioners stay at the particular point in Bhaskar's evolution when he started paying attention to spirituality. The most important aspect is its subjective-objective component, i.e. strong refusal of any reductionist approaches that deny the full richness of human society and individuality, Michel On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the tip Michel. I googled it before but I am reluctant to any theory that talks about spirituality or metaphysics. Maybe I am prejudiced. I am ,though, a fun of Jon kabat-zinn and his meditation teachings because ,despite being insired by buddhism, he uses scientific methods.
I havent read any of roemers work yet, but I still believe that using analytical methods, abstractions etc is a valuable tool that most marxists dont use out of fear.
To make it more precise, if someone proves in an abstraction which doesnt take into account the superstructure or the reasons why people want what they want and where each person is represented by an utility function, that exploitation arises naturally due to the basic axiom of owning the products of his labor, then that proof will be a much stronger argument against this opressive system than any philosophical or sociological argument.
2011/12/27 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
hi Apostolis,
are you familiar with integral methodologies,
these allow for temporary reductionisms, to see what they can yield, but always go back to the integrative interpretations in a more holistic fashion
in contrast to staying with a reductionist approach and claiming it represents reality,
Michel
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
First, let me say that I just learned about rational choice theory and so it will be my interpretation of it that I will defend.
It is important to deferentiate the theory and its results from the interpretation of the results. To this end, all your arguments refute interpretations that most of the time were malevolently made to moralize the unfair status quo.
Evolutionary biology for example is a good science but it has been brutalized by many. We need to use the results, not discard them.
But I have to take back what i said about analytical marxism replacing marxism.
I can argue though that analytical Marxism is to Marxism what mathematics is to physics. The methodology of physicists is incomprehensive to me and my methodology is to them. But physics needs math and math needs physics for too many reasons.
Physicists never stopped using math because some mathematician believe in idealism. Neither have mathematicians stopped taking intuition from the work of physicists because some physicists believe in empiricism.
In conclution, analytical marxism doesnt strip human agency from structures and relations. It simply avoids to deal with the problem simply because the tools that analytical marxism uses are not able to solve it. Do you know that physicists right now use tools that are rejected by mathematicians simply because they dont have a logical framework to put them in?
2011/12/26 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
hi Apostolis,
my impression is that the last 20 years, if not more, of critical economic (and philosophical) thinking have been to undermine rational choice theory in all sorts of ways ... and I personally don't know anybody that acts purely rationally, (and if he/she did, I would see it as a sign of pathology), if that is taken as the essence of rational theory; in my view, it strips human agency of all kinds of crucial embeddeness in structures and relations.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
I just found him. His methodology seems very similar to mine. He also has an interest to equality of opportunity.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism Exploitation
At the same time as Cohen was working on *Karl Marx's Theory of History*, American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics in order to try to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation>and class<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class>. In his *General Theory of Exploitation and Class* (1982), Roemer employed rational choice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice> and game theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory> in order to demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the idea that the labour theory of value<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value> was necessary for explaining exploitation and class. Value was in principle capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange. Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always imply a moral wrong (see section Justice<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism#Justice> below).
I am unfamiliar with his beliefs. I for example believe that the ownership of the means of production are those that create trading routes that allow the market exchange to magnify wealth inequality. I am uncertain though as to who is the victim of exploitation. I think that dependent on the ocassion both the consumer and the workers could be exploited.
Even If it turns out that I disagree with him, He uses rationale choice theory to explain things like I do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
I wonder what happened to this school of thought, most importantly why it hasnt replaced marxism all together. I dont think that this theory is plagued with revisionism, It isnt difficult to avoid determinism while you keep using mathematical models. it has in fact better more concrete foundations than before.
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
participants (2)
-
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis -
Michel Bauwens