Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 10:12:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Labor theory of value debate


One of the problems with the debate over LTV is that it is confined to 
an exegesis of Marx's writings with barely any reference to history, 
politics, society or any other external reality. Therefore, it has more of 
the character of a philosophical discussion rather than something that 
would serve to help those of us who are interested in transforming 
society.

This debate over LTV can be compared to another debate of recent 
memory when "new left" Marxists such as Marcuse challenged the 
idea that the working-class had a revolutionary potential. Classical 
Marxists such as Ernest Mandel counter-attacked and quite a lively 
discussion ensued throught the 1960's. Imagine if this debate had been 
confined to an exegetical analysis of Marx's writings. How sterile this 
would have been. Instead the discussion took up such matters as the 
evolution of a so-called new working-class which included computer 
programmers, etc.; the role of the peasantry in the third world; and the 
introduction of Keynesian techniques into the capitalist economy. 
What brought this debate to a resolution--temporarily--was the May-
June events in France 1968. From that point on, the debate seemed 
settled and a whole generation of leftists embraced 'orthodoxy' albeit in 
an undialectical fashion. They jumped pell-mell into the factories and 
the rest is history.

Steve Keene needs to speak more about the socio-economic reality that 
his anti-LTV theory would serve better to explain. He has done this in 
only the most cursory fashion.

In one instance he asserted that the Soviet state tried to use LTV 
theory as a means of determining prices in the early 1920's. This 
seems preposterous to me. Lenin was in the position of someone trying 
to juggle porcupines while riding a unicycle on a tight-rope. The zig-
zags of the Soviet state in the early 1920's (war communism, NEP) 
had more to do with pragmatic choices rather than Marxist doctrine. 
He faced dilemmas not that different from the ones that Daniel Ortega 
faced and could not solve. Castro will probably not be able to solve 
them either, nor Nelson Mandela.

Keene has also claimed that belief in the LTV leads to a chicken little 
understanding of the 'inevitability' of socialism. I challenged him to 
cite instances of serious Marxist thought that reflects this and he failed 
to do so. Perhaps he is bored by discussion of politics and history.

I believe that the Marxist movement has suffered from its inability to 
understand how capitalism operates to the fullest degree. But I don't 
think it's been in the direction of 'chicken little' ultraleftism. What 
typifies most Marxist thought today is overconfidence in capitalism's 
ability to withstand crisis and deliver the goods. After the Berlin wall 
fell, every leftist in good standing stood in awe of the power of the free 
market. But capitalist restoration in Eastern Europe has turned out to 
be a disaster for the average worker. What was needed at that time was 
a more dialectical understanding of capitalism's strengths and 
weaknesses.

At any rate, endless discussion of theories in the abstract will not 
prove useful in the long run.


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