myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (05/10/85)
> > Also, you wanted to say that your comment about utility value helps show > the value of the labor theory of value. I doubt it. The problem with > the labor theory of value is that values depend on prices and not the > other way around, which is what Marx might have been asserting. Actually, I meant it more generally to emphasize the emphasis which Marx puts on use- vs. exchange-value in Capital I. It really doesn't have much to do with the labor theory of value per se, which I had implied. > > See John Roemer, *A General Theory of Exploitation and Class*, first chapter, > for a clear and non-mathematical explanation of this point of view. He > shows that a rigorous mathematical formulation of all of the basic Marxist > contentions about exploitation can be maintained without reference to a > labor theory of value, and that if these contentions are maintained in > a mathematical model, then value (defined by Marxists as a function of > labor times) can be shown to depend on the price structure. > > Jon Elster has argued recently that the labor theory of value is still > an important and useful rhetorical tool in Marxist organizing, since > the conclusions that follow from it are the same as the more rigorous > ones, and the reasoning that makes these conclusions "follow" is easier > for less educated workers to understand and more relevant in terms of > their own livelihoods. But that's the only defense of the labor theory > of value I currently accept. > > I doubt this letter would persuade you, so take a look at Roemer and what > Elster you can find and check it out. I've heard that Erik Olin Wright, > a Marxist sociologist at Wisconsin, became a Roemer convert recently. Indeed, Erik has become a Roemerian, and has used his outlook on exploitation to modify his own ``contradictory class location'' theorization. In one of Erik's courses I did read the last part of Roemer's book and a fair bit of Elster. Marxist theory is far from stagnant these days, and that's very good. For instance, I think Roemer's theorization of various forms of exploitation is particularly helpful in understanding the various post-capitalist societies around the world today. > > Marxist ECONOMISTS that support the labor theory of value are a dying breed, > although they will likely continue to twitch as long as they keep getting > published. It will probably take a change of generations before they > completely die out, like most scientific revolutions. Well, I guess that this is true in the sense that physicists don't take Newton seriously anymore since General Relativity came along. I still feel that the labor theory of value is of explanatory use in depicting what goes on in a capitalist economy as a close approximation, just as Newton's physics is still of use. > > Tony Wuersch > {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.ARPA UUCP: ..!{harvard,ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers BitNet: MYERS at MACCWISC