Marx's Value Theory--a potential critique
kls at unidui.uni-duisburg.de
Sun May 12 09:49:04 MDT 1996
At 00:33 11.05.1996 EDT, boddhisatva <kbevans at panix.com> wrote:
> Mr. Kuhls,
> Your quotation is not germane.
I think that the political point of my quotations are quite obvious to those
list members who are still defending the fact that Marx' System of Critique
of Political Economy is the basis for socialist politics. Those list members
might not be numerous, however they still are here.
As it is not obvious to you I would like to explain the implications of my
postings as brief as possible.
1. This thread has been started by Mike Dean under the subject line *Marx
and value - a potential critique*. He posed a lot of questions, each
worthwile for a thread on its own. They could be summarized as: How can we
explain the new [?] appearances of capitalism in advanced societies in
accordance to Marx' Capital? He cautiously wrote *potential* critique being
hesitant to post his serious questions to the list.
2. It is significant that those fellow list members who are more agile in
English than me did not take up Mike's question. Rakesh, who usually goes to
the core, made a marginal note, at least. -
Potential critique of Marx' value theory! Not provocative enough to jump in
for the grown political fighters of this list who say their political
activities are based on Marx!
3. However, your intervention, Mr. Bevans, was not a *potential* critique,
it was not even a critique at all, it was just not germane to Marx, who -
in your opinion - "in the three fat books produces a theory which is both
economics and political rhetoric." So it is not suprising that - according
to you - the theory of value is the hard core of this rhetoric, which has to
be dumped into the dust-bin of history, as it is "unnecessary" to explain
the differentia specifica of capitalist societies.
Both Wei En Lin (in a short statement) and Hogh Rodwell (in two long posts)
tried to show the implications of your superficial view of profit,
super-value, prices, value and wages. You refrain to show us why and where
Marx is wrong when developping the transformation of the value (and
respectively the price) of labour-power into wages [Capital I - chapt. 19]
and the conversion of surplus-value into profit [Capital III, part 1] and
further the conversion of profit into average profit.
Yet, your arguments are not about Marxian theory, they are about what *you
believe* Marx had written. As long as you deign to show us the quotations
where he according to you failed to analyze the connection of economic
categories, social relations and the specific forms of consciousness in
capitalist societies, so long you will be confronted with what are his real
arguments - let us say as an encouragement for you to have another look into
the "three fat books", unless you return to your usually brief, often
thoughtful interjections which I mainly read with pleasure.
4. You even don't have to walk along your bookshelves for the "three fat
books". Just point your browser to the given web-address, and you can reread
and rethink the quotations in their context. If you are using Netscape as
your mailer you even don't have to switch to another tool, just click the
link! And in case you don't have access to the web, I am sure the computer
specialists on this list will happily advice you how to get web-pages by email.
5. As it happens the initials of my first names are H. K. H., where the K
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism