[OPE-L:4260] Re: Steve on the worthlessness of labor at the source of surplus value

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 09:37:32 EDT

This is very important point Alejandro is making.  A lot of debates within
and for/against Marx became "frozen" one way or another around the turn of
the twentieth century.  I found that with regard to "accumulation of
capital": it became "frozen" by Lenin's interpretation and by the smashing
of Luxemburg's work.  Even "anti-Leninists" are often unaware of how the
terms of this discussion were set up a century ago.

To answer Steve, sorry, but I won't be struggling with your *Journal of
the History of Economic Thought* pieces.  I decided a long time ago to
work WITHIN Marxism as I understand its foundations and I consider one of
its foundations that labor power is the source of value production.

Paul Z.

******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

Alejandro Ramos <aramos@btl.net> said, on 10/24/00:

>The idea that we may have a theoretical construction which "would render
>reference to labor values superfluous even though Marx's substantive
>claims about the exploitative nature of capitalist profits are affirmed"
>is certainly not new.  

>It was expressed in very clear terms by Tugan Baranowsky 100 years ago,
>and he did provide a variant of such theoretical construction at that

>This was framed within an important intellectual current of the epoch in
>which neo-Kantianism had a strong influence on Socialdemocratic
>intellectuals. So, I'm not "charging" you of this. (BTW, this is not a
>court!) Simply, I'm trying to understand the position of your proposed
>thought experiment in the set of ideas. 

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