versions of LTV
mauro.jr at iol.it
Mon Nov 6 07:21:05 MST 1995
At 23.23 03/11/95 -0700, Lisa wrote:
>Are _you_ saying that revolution is _only_ possible _if_ the
>traditional version of the LTV is true? Your own view is not clear
>to me. (I don't see Steve saying revolution is impossible.)
I'm not saying that revolution is only possible if.... I'm just observing
that anybody who attempted or is attempting to invalidate the LTV is against
the revolution. Steve replying Juan Inigo and indirectly me, stated at 16:45
of the 4th nov.:
>I am a supporter of the mixed
>economy over both free market capitalism and centrally
>planned socialism, and my analytic work I hope shows (and
>will continue to show) that a market economy with a strong
>social security system is more dynamic and more viable
>than either "pure" capitalism--which is the political
>agenda of neoclassical economics--or "pure" non-market
>socialism--which seems to be the agenda of most labor-
Clearer than this, one dies (we say in Italy).
Amongst post-Ricardians, Sraffians, post Keynesians, the PDS (one of the
most reactionary party we have now, just after Berlusconi) would find its
Briefly: he's supporter of the market (let aside with how much social
he does not conceive of a non-market socialism (as a socialism could exist
with the market);
then he's chillingly lying. Some lines before the above ones he writes,
>|Miller then says >. Sweezy supports socialism; Steve assumes capitalism is
>|I'm new in the list and didn't know Keen before. Is the above point right?
>No, it's not.
All this is enough to me for saying that Steve Keen could be a clever
academic in the best universities of the world, one of the best thinker of
the top think-tank of the world ruling class, but neither a marxist nor an
ally of the working class.
Lets go on.
>1. If traditional interpretation of LTV is flawed, is revolution
>therefore _im_possible? Why?
For us, the "traditional interpretation of LTV" is perfectly working (much
more than the economics of the bourgeois academics who have not been able to
understand a comma of the 20 years long period of the present crises. Plus,
from the LTV descends the marxist concept of supervalue, which implies the
historical antagonism between the classes.
Other different "interpretations" of the supervalue I've read on the list
may imply the moral condemnation of capitalism or/and the attempts to reform
capitalism, but not the revolution.
>2. If is it flawed, should we still keep it? Why?
Useless question. It's more than one century that several genious try to
invalidate the LTV without giving anything like a demonstration on a level
with the Marx' LTV. See above.
>3. If it is flawed, is it really the end of marxism? Why?
>4. Is it better to keep a bad LTV argument because it helps the
>cause of anti-capitalism? Or could a better argument help the cause
Consider the answer already given by Chris Burford, who was not replying you
(but it fit):
>However Steve draws out the implication with which I must side,
>that if such an approach (to the LTV - my note) is valid, it points more to
the relevance of a political programme of reforms than one of revolution.
Most difficult of
>all, it suggests that if we are to find new relevance in Marx, it is
>to explain not why capitalism is going to disappear, but why it endures
Right. But the process is not in this way but in the reverse one: one starts
from the reformist (at best) positions for trying to justify them through
the ideological invalidation of the LTV. Why ideological? Because, as in the
case of Steve Keen, his "analytical" work
>>will continue to show) that a market economy with a strong
>>social security system is more dynamic and more viable....
This reminds me directly the chapters of the German Ideology dedicated to
Do you understand the dramatic importance of such a work? He's preparing the
tools for convincing the ruling class that it's wrong in cutting all the
security system and so on....
Then they (Steve and Chris) want marxism to explain why the capitalism
endures so resiliently.
I'll quote for him Charles (my translation in English, sorry): "In the great
historical developments twenty years are nothing but one day. Nevertheless
days can occur in which twenty years condense" (Marx to Engels).
We had two centuries of capitalism and yet two great revolutionary attempts
(Paris Commune, Russian Revolution). Meanwhile two imperialist world wars,
which opened anew the accumulation cycles.
We could have to explain why this crises period is lasting over two decades
without war nor revolutionl. But we did (ant notice that imperialist war
does not necessarily means the same contemporary process of the II WW).
Who, intellectual, want to see the revolution happening during his life,
otherway he get back to enjoy capitalism, is an intellectual with .. little
Tel (-39)02/35.51.275 fax (-39)02/33.200.101
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism