[OPE-L:6317] Re: recent science and society and Fred M's

From: John Ernst (ernst@pipeline.com)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 19:06:07 EST

Responding to Gil's question 

Why is it necessary to embrace the labor theory of value in order to be a

In 6315, Rakesh wrote:

"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."

My reaction:   It seems to me that the task of today is to show what
you assert.  To date, as far as I know, this has not been done.  Given 
the current state of our knowledge it seems strange to insist that one 
must embrace or believe in the labor theory of value to be considered 
a Marxist.  To be sure, I think we would both agree that dismissals
of Marx's "Law of Value" are, at best, premature.   

Rakesh,  would you explain what you went on to say in your post.

"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