>Rakesh writes, among other things, > >>Why Laibman insists that he is a Marxist >>after repudiating the labor theory of value escapes me, but I digress. > >Why is it necessary to embrace the labor theory of value in order to be a >Marxist? > >Gil Gil, it is nice to hear from you. no matter how i much disagree with you--and boy do I disagree with you--I am am happy when someone of your intellectual acuity turns his eyes on Marxian theory I would hope that there are many answers to your question, Gil. My first answer is simple and predictable: if the average rate of profit is not ultimately determined by labor time relations, then capitalism cannot give rise to those contradictions in the process of production that Marx, as a materialist, thought were the precondition for the revolutionary activity of the only the subject that Marx thought had even the latent power to actually effect a transition in the mode of production--the working class. But as I said I am anxious to hear other answers. It would be great if Tony Smith appeared on this list--to write about Lakatos' and hard cores. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST