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 ============================================================= ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005