[Marxism] 'What to do with the Labor Theory of Value'
marinercarpentry at gmail.com
Sun May 12 15:49:54 MDT 2013
"So what, 'your' interpretation basically thinks Marx wasn't really
doing political economy, but was engaging in it only to critique it?
What, was Marx doing political economy ironically?"
- Well not irony, but immanent critique. I think you'll find this has
quite a lot of agreement these days, from TSSI advocates to supporters
of the TLV or monetary theory of vale.
"....you also have no idea that the TSSI is also single system,
meaning that prices and values can be expressed in either labor-time
or currency units, and that the transformation problem is also thusly
- As these arguments have been quite well rehearsed on here sine
Heinrich's book was first published, I'm pretty certain most of us
understand the limitations of the neo-Ricardian dual system approach
and also the correction advocated by the TSSI'ers. The point is that
Heinrich is saying there isn't a problem to begin with.
"from what I had read it seems vague and indulgent. Thank you for
reinforcing my prejudice"
- well now it's you doing the trolling. Heinrich's involved in the
MEGA project, a couple of hundered scholars literally pouring over
every philological detail of Marx - Engels' works; hardly vague.
Indulgent? Well that's just a dumb comment, it's a scholarly work, how
can it be indulgent in any sense that is different from any other such
On 12 May 2013 21:57, MMBKG2 <mmbkg2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
>> Hahahaha, nice try, but everyone thinks they take Marx's critique of political economy at "face value." And yet, surprisingly, people still disagree on their interpretations.
> So what, 'your' interpretation basically thinks Marx wasn't really doing political economy, but was engaging in it only to critique it? What, was Marx doing political economy ironically?
> "Hahaha, nice try"...try? What try? My trying to learn? Thanks for the encouragement but you're not really helping.
>> Because it assumes that discussions about a so-called "transformation problem" are worthwhile. From the perspective of the "monetary" reading, there is NO transformation problem, because there is no "transforming" values into prices; values cannot be expressed without money. That is one of the main points behind Chapter One of Vol. I, and one of Marx's main criticisms of Proudhon and anarchists, who wanted to abolish money while retaining the existence of commodities.
> Not only are you combative for no reason, you also have no idea that the TSSI is also single system, meaning that prices and values can be expressed in either labor-time or currency units, and that the transformation problem is also thusly resolved. This is discussed (and exemplified) in a relatively-well known blog post on the topic that explains the basics of the TSSI titled "What Transformation Problem?"
>> Buy the book and find out. Or wait until the translation of the "Science of Value" is finished for a more in-depth explanation of Marx's revolutionary break with the framework of classical political economy.
> Really! So you have time to make snotty, ill-informed comments at someone trying to learn about your favorite interpretation of Marx's critique of political economy, but you don't have any time to go over even the very basics of it?! I wanted to ask someone who takes Heinrich's interpretation because, to be honest, from what I had read it seems vague and indulgent. Thank you for reinforcing my prejudice.
> - xx
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com
More information about the Marxism