> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:11:07 -0700
> Reply-to: ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu
> From: glevy@acnet.pratt.edu
> To: Multiple recipients of list <ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: [OPE-L:1848] [MIKE WILLIAMS] Re: subjectivity
>
>
> Paul
>
> 2. It seems to me that those economists who have recourse to subjectivity
> to explain for example value, come up with theories that are both
> politically reactionary and scientifically untestable.
>
Why politically reactionary? I can "test" the alienation of labour any
time I eneter the capital labour relation. Still labour here
presupposes a labouring subject.
>
> Paul
>
> 3. The Marxian theory of value is both subject free, testable and does not
> obscure
> real economic relations.
This is what your DEFINITION of Marxian theory of value lead to. My
definition of Marxian theory of value is that it is not subject free,
and preciselly because of this not only "does not obscure real
economic relations" but bring these AT THE CENTRE of the enquiry.
As far as the question of testability is concerned, the issue is
quite secondary.
> Paul
>
> 4 It is one of the strengths of Marx that his theory is based on the
> relationship between historic economic categories, not on the subject
> which is an a-historical philosophical category.
Wrong. The subject is a historically specific subject, with
historically specific needs and historically specific ways to
struggle for them. there it is, history even within capitalism and
not only between "modes of production". What does not change is
capital reason of being and the abstract character of working class
alienation.
Massimo