>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. Yes, you are right. > 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. I am confused here. Does one say that one doesn't have to accept the theory of natural selction to be a Darwinian? This analogy must be off. Why? > To be sure, I think we would both agree that dismissals >of Marx's "Law of Value" are, at best, premature. Yes, I think there are many adequate solutions to the transformation, and I think the comparative static nature of many of criticisms of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall makes them suspect. But I do have a criticism or two of the TSS school that I will forward at the appropriate time. John, > > >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." John, I'll try to attempt an explanation but I was thinking of theory of labor value as part of the hard core of the Marxian research programme. I hope that Tony S appears on this list. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST