Historical Materialism

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Justin: clip...The vulgar version is wrong in any case
because there is no reason to deny that there may be many factors, including
subjective ones (demand) that go into value.

^^^^^^

CB: This suggests lack of understanding of  Marx's analytical distinction between use-value and exchange-value ( "value").  "Demand"  or want and its subjective  source compose use-value, which does not impact the labor theory of value, or law of value.


^^^^^^^

Justin: Finally, there's the point that is key to my mind, which is that the theory
have proved fruitless.

CB: Says you.  The LTV is a key component of the science founded in _Capital_.  It seems an analyticist style error to detach the LTV from the entire ( whole) theory of Marx..   _Capital_ has born much fruit in theoretical political economy. Some of the better known works are by Lenin, Luxemburg,  Sweezy, Perlo, Perelman......etc., etc.,etc. And of course _Capital_ has proved extraordinarily more fruitful in practice, in actually changing the world, than most theories ( any other theories ).

^^^^^^^^

and shortly thereafter
the bourgeois economists developed the subjectivist value theory that had
been sort of kicking around quietly (Marx sneers at it offhand in various
places), but the Marxists stuck with the old theory because it was in the
sacred text, even if after it was clear that it faced insuperable logical
problems and was doing no work.

^^^^^^^

CB: This implies that neo-classical subjectivist theory has proven fruitful in a way that Marx's theory hasn't.  You haven't adduced evidence of that here.