Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:53:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: marxian, marxist, and the LTV


On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, j laari wrote:

> Justin wrote:
> 
> > I disagree with the cornerstone position of the LTV. I think you can
> > acknowledge the basic antagonism between capital and labor and the
> > exploitative character of capitalism without it.
> 
> Might be so. I guess I should read your Nous article before I say
> anything on that. (I've never really understood why exploitation
> should be seen as a negative factor - except, perhaps, from common
> sense viewpoint: it somehow insults our 'intuition' that we own our
> bodies and therefore its fruits should belong to us?)

Actually this is exactly the view I attack in WWWE. THere I argue (a) taht
exploitation is offensive because it reduces freedomm and (b) there might
be (in fact I think there is) a justice-based objection to exploitation,
although Marx rejects this idea, but not one based on self-ownership. In
another article I discuss a justice based objectiuon to domination, of
which exploitation is one variety. This hasn't come out yet; it's due out
in Legal Studies (a British law journal), but they haven't said when.

The objection to exploitation you discuss is developed most fully by G.A.
Cohen; see his Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. I argue in my paper
>From Libertarianism to Egalitarianism, Social Theory and Practice, Fall
1992, that if we buy into self-ownership, which I do not, taht we should
be egalitarianis and that the best realization of the self-ownership
principle is To Each According to His Needs. But I reject any natural
rights talk, including the self-ownership theory.

In WWWE I argue that we can have exploitation without the LTV. I only
mention my view that MArx does not hold the LTV in a footnote.

None of these discussions depend on any technical economics.


 For us
> non-economists it's quite hard to follow finesses of economic theory.


> 
> > Well, I differ here too. I think Marx's theiory is not a form of economic
> > reductionism, nor one sided in the way that you suggest.
> 
> It depends from what angle you're looking at it. Either as theory of
> society or as social theory it surely is. That is, from sociological
> viewpoint ("Marx as a sociological classic"). I should have said it.
> I'm not qualified to value his work in the light of pol. economy.
> 

But I think thius is wrong as a sociuological reading of Marx. Marx
never,except in a few overwuoted epgrams, tries to explain poliutical,
ideological, etc. phenomena solely in economic terms. In his detailed
explanations he always grants these phenonema a lot of autonomy, treating
the economy as a limiting constraint on their variation, not as the sole
explanation. You might look here at Richarcd Miller's discussion of M's
theory of history in his Analaysing Marx. The economic determinist view is
maintained by Cohen, but he's widely and effectively criticized fir it.
> 
> > I don't quite follow this. Are you saying that if liberal or other
> > bourgeois ideoloigy cannot live up to iys own promises because of the way
> > capitalism works, that's an argument for change? Surely it is, but Marx
> > suggests a different basis, namely that capitalism cannot live up the
> > expectations and values generated in class struggle by the workers, in
> > opposition to bourgeois ideology.
> 
> Yes, but today it's hard to find such working-class expectations and
> values as clearly (and hopefully powerfully) stated alternatives to
> bourgeois ideologies. On the contrary, issues that concentrate on wage
> (and other labour market policy questions) are the ones where workers
> and capitalists understand each others very well. And that concerns
> not only social democrats. Both social democratic and ex-communist
> trade unions are quite strongly against labour time cuts. At least
> here in Finland. Main issues concern wage. In this sense capitalism
> does live up expectations and values of workers. It can afford couple
> of pennies more every now and then.

Well, that's Finnish social democracy. It looks otherwise in America. The
workers have hardly gathered around a working class ethic taht is
anticapitalist, but discontent is pervasive.
> 
\--Justin




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