From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Subject: Re: M-I: LTV or LOV
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:21:24 -0600 (CST)


    Only a brief note at this time, but I agree with Rob rather than
Lou on this one: the labor theory of value can't just be taken for
granted but must be almost endlessly regrasped.

    Regardless of the ultimate conclusion about the theory, both
Freedman and the recent quotation from Engels are wrong on this.
The first point about the LTV is not its relation or non-relation
to prices but the fact that it gives a basic grasp on how living
human activity is allocated under *given historical conditions.*
Price theory by itself ignores humans as humans.
    Carrol




>
> At the risk of further infuriationg Lou P. - I have a question re: LTV - as
> put by Robert Freedman:
>
> Marx's proposition that labour is the source of all value is a problem:
> 'The supposed proof of this proposition is a logical non sequitur, since it
> ignores the key factor of relative scarcity, which is central among the
> price and value determining forces in any free market.  Moreover, even if
> Marx's labour theory of value were true in any sense, it is a
> non-operational concept, since not even Soviet economists have been able to
> create a calculus of labour values by reducing all types of skilled and
> trained labour to simple multiples of ordinary unskilled labour, as Marx
> assumed could be done.'
>
> Can anyone help here?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---