But Rakesh, surely it is possible to have class conflict, exploitation, realization crises, imperialism, financial meltdowns and all of the other problems one associates with capitalism -- WITHOUT subscribing to Marx's labor value analysis. Debates about value theory are endless, of course. And they start with disagreements about precisely what it consists of. Let's leave all of that aside. What I find disconcerting about the assertion that one must accept the LTV in order to qualify as a Marxist is that it comes very close to saying that if the LTV isn't sound, Marx has nothing fundamental to offer. I think that's wrong, mainly because most of his analysis about the stuff I mentioned in the first paragraph holds up. I also think it turns Marxism into a church to say that one must accept this or that doctrine to qualify for the label "Marxist," and that can only hurt its long-run prospects as an account of social reality. In the end, of course, it doesn't matter whether this or that label is attached to what anyone thinks. What matters is how well a particular theory of how the world works meshes with the way the world actually does work. I would argue that Marx gets high marks on that criterion, and he scores them without the LTV. Gary -----Original Message----- From: Rakesh Bhandari [SMTP:rakeshb@stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:05 PM To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu Subject: [OPE-L:6315] Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation >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