[OPE-L:6315] Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 16:05:01 EST

>Rakesh writes, among other things,
>>Why Laibman insists that he is a Marxist
>>after repudiating the labor theory of value escapes me, but I digress.
>Why is it necessary to embrace the labor theory of value in order to be a

it is nice to hear from you. no matter how i much disagree with 
you--and boy do I disagree with you--I am am happy when someone of 
your intellectual acuity turns his eyes on Marxian theory

I would hope that there are many answers to your question, Gil.

My first answer is simple and predictable: if the average rate of 
profit is not ultimately determined by labor time relations, then 
capitalism cannot give rise to those contradictions in the process of 
production that Marx, as a materialist, thought were the precondition 
for the revolutionary activity of the only the subject that Marx 
thought had even the latent power to actually effect a transition in 
the mode of production--the working class.

But as I said I am anxious to hear other answers. It would be great 
if Tony Smith appeared on this list--to write about Lakatos' and hard 


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST