Re Rakesh's post 6333: Rakesh, I think I now see the basis on which you questioned the possibility of being Marxist without embracing Marx's law of value. Am I right to say you reserve the term "Marxist" (as opposed to, say, "post-Marxist" or "Marxist-inspired") for analysis that follows the analytical scheme laid out in capital, so that someone who rejects Marx's theory of labor value, for example, is not a Marxist by definition? Even if that person embraces most or all of Marx's diagnosis of and prognosis for capitalism? Gil PS, A point of lingering curiosity: What exactly do you take Marx's "law of value" to be? >> I don't see the basis for >>claim (2) or (3). For example, with regard to (3), are you suggesting that >>a necessary condition for being a Marxist is accepting every empirical >>claim Marx made (in Capital, say), even if one feels some are false? > >It's not every and all empirical claims but those related in >particular to the revolutionary activity of the working class. > >I am saying that Marx's work should not be understood to have >described the deplorable working conditions in early capitalism >Manchester; rather Marx's theory is meant to have adduced on the >basis of the law of value a tendency towards protracted periods in >which there are growing contradictions within the process of >production itself, e.g, a struggle to reverse worker gains and >depress wages below the value of labor power; for on Marx's own >assumptions there can be no causal or moral teleogical grounds for >the revolutionary activity of the working class unless capitalism >fails to develop the productive forces and to raise the living >standards of the working class. > >If such a tendency does not in fact prevail, then Marx's theory is >invalidated (of course the hows and whys of verification raise >tremendous problems); and if such a tendency does prevail but Marx's >labor value theory fails to explain it, then Marx's theory fails as >well. > >For example, I would say that Brenner's theory is not based on labor >value; however it may successfully explain the obtaining of the >social conditions that give rise causally and morally to the >revolutionary activity of the working class. Brenner would then have >vindicated Marx only by having moved beyond Marx. His theory should >then be considered post Marxist, not Marxian. And it is arguably a >better theory for being just that. > > > >> With >>regard to (2), are you suggesting that the expressions of capitalist >>contradiction Marx identified (immiseration of the working class, >>increasingly severe crises) cannot arise *unless* the average rate of >>profit equals the ratio indicated above? > >Well there are two claims here, and I thank you for allowing me to clarify; > >(i)no, it is possible that such phenomena can be explained on a >foundation other than the theory of labor value, but such >explanations are not Marxian ones. Which does not mean that they are >not better ones. > >(ii)my judgement is all such alternative theories will in fact fail >to explain the root causes of said developmental tendencies (crises, >immiseration). > >It is of course possible to give a *description* of crises, working >class struggle within the abode of production and unemployment >without reference to labor value (all one has to do is remove rose >blinkered spectacles); it is not however possible in my opinion to >give a deep explanation of the root causes of said developmental >tendencies of the capitalist sytem on any other foundation than the >one of labor value (or as Tony Smith would put it, in the >commodity-form, money form, and capital form themselves; of course >one could argue that rooting said phenomena in these forms does not >necessarily commit one to the theory of labor value). > >rakesh > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST