[OPE-L:6323] Re: recent science and society and Fred M's

From: John Ernst (ernst@pipeline.com)
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 00:32:45 EST

I had written:

>  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.

Rakesh wrote:

I am confused here. Does one say that one doesn't have to accept the 
theory of natural selction to be a Darwinian? This analogy must be 
off. Why?

My comment:   It seems to me that Darwin's theory is worked out enough that
it can be stated and used in research.   One need not be a believer to do
This simply isn't true of Marx's effort.  That is, his stated purpose was 
to uncover the economic law of motion of modern society.  If he did this,
what is that law?  Here, disagreements arise. 

Why would Marxists insist that a Marxist must believe in something called 
the labor theory of value?  Why would Marxists claim that this belief is
required in order to understand the law of motion when there is no agreement 
on what that law is?    


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