[OPE-L:4230] Logic and illogic in defending Marx

From: Alejandro Ramos (aramos@btl.net)
Date: Sun Oct 22 2000 - 22:38:33 EDT

Re Rakesh 4227:


>Otherwise, why wouldn't anything with a P--say purchase of a 
>waterfall as energy source--transfer value in accordance with the 
>value of the money need to procure it?

If you purchase a waterfall you're not a capitalist but a landlord. If
Andrew is the capitalist and is renting your waterfall, the money he pays
to you is a part of the surplus value, not transferred to the Korn he loves
to produce. So, despite that this sum is, in his book-keeping, a "cost of
production" as the seed is, it is not constant capital and hence neither an
element of the advanced capital nor of the cost-price, in Marx's sense;
it's rent.


>It seems plausible, but not consistent with the labor theory of value.

It's not consistent with the so-called "LTV" as was understood by
Tugan-Baranowsky back in 1899-05. But, as Tugan himself writes, his version
of the LTV is not equal to Marx's version. There is nothing that one can
call THE LTV.

In addition to this, it still strikes me that a learned Marxist such Allin
remains a defender of a theoretical position explicitly devised and
presented by his author in order to show that Marx was absolutely wrong.
But Allin does this in the naive belief that he's defending Marx! Marxism
is indeed a "dialectical" way of living.

Alejandro R.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST