[OPE-L:4278] Re: Re: Re: Steve on the worthlessness of labor at the source of surplus value

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed Oct 25 2000 - 13:35:02 EDT

On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Steve Keen wrote:

> Sydney back in the early 1970s. Some fellow activists with whom I found
> myself in frequent disagreement were great fans of Althusser then (don't
> know how many still are). I got sick of hearing the word 'praxis'.

Allin's question would be mine.  I rarely use 'praxis'.

> With respect to the labor theory of value interpretation of Marx, I argue
> that it is based on incorrectly accepting the premise that labor is the
> only source of value, and working logically forward from there.

Marx never, or almost never, used "labor theory of value" but rather
referred to "law of value".

> The reason I call the premise incorrect is that, if you read Marx closely,
> after 1857 that was not his initial premise but a deduction from a prior
> set of dialectical premises about the commodity, exchange-value and
> use-value. I argue that working logically from those premises reaches a
> conclusion which contradicts the labor theory of value.

My reference to Althusser was not entirely accidental.  If I am defending
a non-Hegelian reading of Marx, why would I be interested your discussion
of "dialectical premises", derivative of a Hegelian reading?

Paul Z.

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