On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Steve Keen wrote: > Sydney back in the early 1970s. Some fellow activists with whom I found > myself in frequent disagreement were great fans of Althusser then (don't > know how many still are). I got sick of hearing the word 'praxis'. Allin's question would be mine. I rarely use 'praxis'. > With respect to the labor theory of value interpretation of Marx, I argue > that it is based on incorrectly accepting the premise that labor is the > only source of value, and working logically forward from there. Marx never, or almost never, used "labor theory of value" but rather referred to "law of value". > The reason I call the premise incorrect is that, if you read Marx closely, > after 1857 that was not his initial premise but a deduction from a prior > set of dialectical premises about the commodity, exchange-value and > use-value. I argue that working logically from those premises reaches a > conclusion which contradicts the labor theory of value. My reference to Althusser was not entirely accidental. If I am defending a non-Hegelian reading of Marx, why would I be interested your discussion of "dialectical premises", derivative of a Hegelian reading? Paul Z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST