Re: Re: Econ texts - possible to teach Marx seriously?

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brad writes:
> The problem, of course, is the labor theory of value is "true" and
> "operates" always and everywhere, while the relative stagnation of blue-,
> pink-, and low-level white-collar wages is a post-1973 phenomenon.

I don't see the contradiction here. The key aspect of the "labor theory of
value" that operates always and everywhere (under capitalism) is that
capitalists seek to increase social surplus-value by any means necessary,
i.e., at whatever cost to others, including to other capitalists.

Though this is true, it is very abstract. The phenomenon of the post-1973
stagnation of wages can be explained only at a lower level of abstraction.
(Sweezy has a very good explanation of the role of different levels of
abstraction, Brad, in chapter 1 of his THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT.) I
would explain it in terms of the end of the nation-state-based "model" of
capitalist accumulation which involved truces between the major classes and
sometimes explicit social-democratic "accords." Most dramatically
stimulated by the energy crises and the productivity slow-downs of the
1970s, which caused profit rates to fall, the capitalists took their gloves
off and started an offensive, which spawned the neo-liberal revolution of
the last quarter century, complete with greater labor-market "flexibility"
(i.e., stagnant or falling wages), a sapping or gutting of welfare states,
and a move toward global capitalism.

> And saying that the LTV has only operated for the past generation because
> we are now in the Age of the Final Contradication is an extremely
> risky--although time-hallowed--explanatory strategy...

I didn't see Charlie saying anything like this.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine