Responding to Gil's question Why is it necessary to embrace the labor theory of value in order to be a >Marxist? In 6315, Rakesh wrote: "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." My reaction: It seems to me that the task of today is to show what you assert. To date, as far as I know, this has not been done. Given the current state of our knowledge it seems strange to insist that one must embrace or believe in the labor theory of value to be considered a Marxist. To be sure, I think we would both agree that dismissals of Marx's "Law of Value" are, at best, premature. Rakesh, would you explain what you went on to say in your post. "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." Thanks, John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST