OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

[OPE-L] Why Marx's theory of value matters

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.

The current (March-April, 2005) issue of "News & Letters" has
a review by Tom More of Freeman, Kliman, Wells eds. _The New
Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics_:
http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2005/Mar-April/Essay_Mar-April_05.htm >
 
The conclusion to the essay is noteworthy:
 
" ... if we want an alternative to capitalist society, we need to know
what capital is.  Nothing is more indispensable to this aim than the
right interpretation of Marx's theory of value, as Marx himself insisted
on occasions too numerous to count."
 
The "too numerous to count" occasions are, of course, *zero*. 
 
I.e. Marx *never* suggested that a "right interpretation" of his theory of
value was "indispensable" to knowing "what capital is."   One could,
of course, claim -- as More does -- that a "right" interpretation of
Marx's theory of value is "indispensable" to that aim, but Marx
himself  *never* made that claim.  It is an example of a contemporary
'Marx myth and legend'.  One wonders why no one at "News &
Letters" proofreading More's essay  caught this obvious error.
 
In solidarity, Jerry
 
 
 
 
 
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]