>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. Gary I agree that it is very possible to have non labor value theories of these maladies. And they may be better theories from a scientific and political point of view than Marxian ones. But they won't be Marxian ones if they are not based on the theory of labor value and more specifically Marx's own theory of *abstract labor* value. Marx may be wrong, he may be outdated. And this is a question I very much want to keep on the table. Gil thinks there is a better theoretical explanation for exploitation than the Marxian one. This is indeed possible, but we should be clear that it is not a Marxian theory. This does not disqualify it; it clarifies it. But I don't think you can take away the foundations of a theory and keep the theory. That's just sleight of hand. > >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. Without the labor theory of value, Marx has only a description of the tendencies of capitalist development, not an explanatory theory. And the empirical description of such phenomena as the concentration of capital, the expropriation of the middle classes, the crisis cycle was already given by William Playfair in the early 1800s. So then what's Marx's contribution without if not an explanation based on labor theory of value? rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST