Scott at rednet.org
Tue Oct 17 07:16:00 MDT 1995
In a very fine post on value Jim wrote :
>THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE
<snip a lot>
> But none of this makes any sense at all unless the distinction
>between use value and exchange value is clearly absorbed as the
>starting point (_Capital_ I, Chap. I).
Didn't Marx make this point explicitly in regards to his arguments with
Ricardo - I think somewhere he says this is the point where revolutionary
working class economics parts company with traditional bourgeois economics.
This is the key to understanding the mechanism of class exploitation in
>To muddy the distinction
>between use value and exchange value has been one of the central
>objectives of bourgeois economics since Bohm-Bawerk. It is not
>hard to understand why. They believe that capitalism is the be-all
>and the end-all and will never die.
If anything I think Jim understates the case - tons and tons of obscurantist
horseshit has been written and printed and whole industries of obscure
'political economy schools' (often reflected on this list) have been created
out of whole cloth to mystify and confuse this central point of Marxist theory.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism