Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 15:24:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: SCIABRRC-AT-ACFcluster.NYU.EDU
Subject: Labor Theory & Lukacs


     Just a few notes on some of the broad issues which have
been raised:

"The Labor Theory of Value"

     I firmly believe that, as an explanation of relative
prices, this theory has been completely discredited.  From
the time of Boehm-Bawerk's "Karl Marx and the Close of His
System," through the modern Austrian and neo-classical
critiques, sufficient theoretical grounds have been developed
to reject the labor theory.

     However, it is questionable if Marx actually meant to
use this theory for the strict purpose of explaining price
differentials.  Ollman suggests, and even a non-Marxist such
as Thomas Sowell would agree, that the theory pertains more
broadly to the PHENOMENON of prices in capitalism, and the
social relations underlying this phenomenon.

     However, while the Marxist concept of "class" is
internally related to the labor theory of value, it need not
follow that one must dispense with the concept of class IF
the labor theory is invalid.  It means that one must dispense
with the MARXIST concept of class.  In fact, there are other
conceptions of "class" that have been put forth in
intellectual history, by non-Marxists, e.g., by anarchists
and libertarians.  Alas, these conceptions are not the focus
of the current discussion group, but they DO exist.

Lukacs and Marxism

     I think that Lukacs' statement that Marxism IS
dialectics was among his most provocative claims.  While I
firmly disagree with Lukacs, I still believe that dialectics
is INDISPENSABLE to radical social theory.  Marx himself,
argued that it was a conceptual tool, both "critical and
revolutionary" in its implications.

     But to DEFINE Marxism in terms of its dialectical savvy,
is to view dialectics as the ESSENTIAL characteristic of
Marxism, a characteristic which distinguishes Marxism from
all other schools of thought.  To IDENTIFY Marxism and
dialectics is to view the concepts as INTERNAL to one
another.  In Lukacs' view, Marxism could not be what it is in
the absence of its relationship to dialectics, and dialectics
could not be what it is in the absence of its relationship to
Marxism.  Each is partially constitutive of the other.  Thus,
even if Marx's substantive theories were all discredited,
Lukacs argues, Marx's METHOD would remain.  And since Marxism
is method, it would remain unscathed.

     Lukacs is correct to see dialectics as a METHOD.  But as
a method, dialectics has been employed, sometimes
extensively, by other radical, though non-Marxist, social
thinkers.  It is possible to combine a dialectical method
with a substantive, radical orientation that is thoroughly
non-Marxist.  Since this has been done in the history of
social thought, one cannot DEFINE Marxism in terms of its
dialectical method.  One can merely note that dialectics, as
a mode of inquiry, is an important conceptual tool used by
Marx and many of his followers.


                              - Chris

============================================================Dr. Chris M. Sciabarra
Visiting Scholar, N.Y.U. Department of Politics
INTERNET:  sciabrrc-AT-acfcluster.nyu.edu
BITNET:    sciabrrc-AT-nyuacf
=============================================================


     ------------------