RE: value vs price

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Charles writes:
> CB: My take on Marx normative issues is that he asserts many
> injunctions ( such as "Workers of the world , unite", "the
> thing is to change the world") , so he has an ethical
> component to his theory. Ethics is what one does, and so
> Marx's emphasis on the unity of theory and practice is the
> general statement that there is an ethical dimension to
> Marxism. There is a famous letter to his father when he was
> young in which he claims to have found a way to unite the
> "is" and the "ought ".  I get the impression he did not use
> explicit reference to "morals" and "ethics" because the
> philosophers and theologians had given those topics such a
> bad name.  "Practice" of revolutionary theory is his ethics.

In general, I agree with what you say. Unity of theory and practice is key.

> On exploitation, my take is that he noticed that in FACT,
> throughout history, exploited and oppressed classes struggle
> against their exploitation and oppression.  Opposition to
> exploitation is a human natural ethical project ; the "is" of
> history and the "ought" of what is to be done are united in
> the class struggle of exploited classes.

Accepting the FACT of exploitation doesn't autonomatically mean that one
should side with the exploited. Many -- including many members of the
working class -- have concluded that backing the (currently) winning side is
the best strategy.

It's not easy to derive a clear and unambiguous "ought" out of an "is."
Jim Devine