LOV - value of references?

Justin Schwartz jschwart at freenet.columbus.oh.us
Sun Jul 2 19:55:31 MDT 1995

Chris asks for more detailed anti-LTV argument. I agree that this is in
order, but fear I must beg off--I haven't the time. That's why I provided
the references to Howrad and King, etc. You can get an overview of the
arguments in H&K, History of Marxian Economics, vol. 2, and follow up the
references there. I can't do it now becfause (a) I'm going on holiday, and
(b) when I get back I'm going to law school. (My participation will in
general be sharply curtailed. Many regrets, but understanf I'm not saying
to accept my skepticism on authority. Look up the references!

I like Chris's account of the transformation problem as a sort of
Transubstantion. I should have thought of that.

In re. Jim Devine's earlier cavil about my sharp distinction between the
historical materialist and the value-theoretic Marx: Jim says in essensema
s I understand him, that all he understands value talk to be is a
historical materialist way of describing social relations in a class
society--it doesn't have anythiung to do with prices (even aggregate
prices) or anything quantitative about capitalist society. I am willing to
accept that the rationa; core or value theory is just something like this.
I think taht taking thius line means kicking away the ladder after we have
climbed it. I further think taht this is what Marx, more or less, does,
and once we have got to that point, value talk is dispensable. So maybe
Jim and I agree, although I certainly share Gil Skillman's complaints that
Jim's theory of the LYV is mainly negative (it's not this, it's not that),
and so is hard to understand.

--Justin Schwartz

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list