[OPE-L] Why Marx's theory of value matters

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Sun Apr 17 2005 - 09:03:29 EDT

• Next message: John Holloway: "Re: [OPE-L] Query to John Holloway: What's your position on theBolivarianrevolution?"
• Previous message: Philip Dunn: "[OPE-L] Yet another TP solution"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

The current (March-April, 2005) issue of "News & Letters" has
a review by Tom More of Freeman, Kliman, Wells eds. _The New
Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics_:
http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2005/Mar-April/Essay_Mar-April_05.htm >

The conclusion to the essay is noteworthy:

" ... if we want an alternative to capitalist society, we need to know 
what capital is.  Nothing is more indispensable to this aim than the
right interpretation of Marx's theory of value, as Marx himself insisted
on occasions too numerous to count."

The "too numerous to count" occasions are, of course, *zero*.  

I.e. Marx *never* suggested that a "right interpretation" of his theory of
value was "indispensable" to knowing "what capital is."   One could,
of course, claim -- as More does -- that a "right" interpretation of
Marx's theory of value is "indispensable" to that aim, but Marx 
himself  *never* made that claim.  It is an example of a contemporary
'Marx myth and legend'.  One wonders why no one at "News & 
Letters" proofreading More's essay  caught this obvious error.

In solidarity, Jerry

• Next message: John Holloway: "Re: [OPE-L] Query to John Holloway: What's your position on theBolivarianrevolution?"
• Previous message: Philip Dunn: "[OPE-L] Yet another TP solution"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 18 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT