I had written: > 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. Rakesh wrote: 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? My comment: It seems to me that Darwin's theory is worked out enough that it can be stated and used in research. One need not be a believer to do so. This simply isn't true of Marx's effort. That is, his stated purpose was to uncover the economic law of motion of modern society. If he did this, what is that law? Here, disagreements arise. Why would Marxists insist that a Marxist must believe in something called the labor theory of value? Why would Marxists claim that this belief is required in order to understand the law of motion when there is no agreement on what that law is? John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST