I am sure we will all agree that the political attractiveness of a theoretical position, whilst it might motivate particular research avenues, cannot in itself speak to the validity of a theory as an account of an actually existing theoretical object - in this case capitalism? *If* we act politically on the basis of, say, a one-sided LET of value, and *if* that theory is seriously misleading about the nature of capitalism, then we may be guilty of a catastrophic trahison des clercs! comradely greetings, michael > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > [mailto:owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu]On Behalf Of charlie > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 5:59 AM > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > Subject: [OPE-L:5602] Re: Ockam's Razor > > > Paul Cockshott wrote: > > > An attraction of the labour theory of value to socialists from > Owen onwards is that it provides an alternative way to perform > economic calculation without recourse to money, that 'power to > command others'. > < > (OPE-5589) > > Closely related to this attraction is exposure of capital's > inhuman distortions. For example, under the profit motive capital > perpetuates stupefying labor that a machine is ready to perform. > The reason is that capital decides whether to make the > replacement by comparing the full cost of the machine to the > discounted cost of workers. This way of stating the matter is > loose; details of the calculation, considering such complications > as prices of production, are in my book From Capitalism to > Equality. As fas as I can see, this insight can be established > only with a labor theory of value having a quantitative aspect. > > Charles Andrews > Web site for my book is at http://www.LaborRepublic.org >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT