Emboldened by positive remarks from some pen-lers I hereby
embark on a defense of the classical labor theory of value (LTV),
or something closely resembling it.
Preface
=======
1. I realize that I have an uphill struggle ahead, given the volume
and authority of the critiques that are out there. These critiques --
I'm thinking mainly of those produced by people who are broadly
sympathetic to a revised marxism as they conceive it, e.g.
Steedman, Roemer, Elster -- are clearly smart work, and although
I strongly believe that they are ultimately wrong, insofar as they
lead to a rejection of the LTV, they make many undeniably
correct points along the way. Further, I think it's true that many
(though certainly not all) of the defenses of the LTV that have
been made to date partake in some degree or other of the sort of
obscurantism, dogmatism, or general woolly thinking that are
anathema to a razor-sharp logician such as Steedman. My
strategy here will be to offer a sampling of arguments that serve to
sever the valid points made by the critics from their general anti-
LTV conclusion, as well as a sampling of positive grounds for
considering the LTV scientifically useful. Some willingness on the
part of readers *provisionally* to "suspend disbelief" is
presupposed. (That is, if I am called on every point at the outset,
I will not get very far.)
2. I also realize that this electronic forum is not suitable for the
posting of long, detailed arguments. If my own practice is
anything to go by, long messages from the lists get saved at first
("for future reading"), then deleted a month or so later when one
is in danger of exceeding one's disk quotas. I will therefore try to
serve up this argument in reasonably small and digestible chunks.
For anyone who would like a synoptic view of where the
argument is headed -- well, I'm afraid I can't yet point you to a
finished paper on the subject. The ideas I will present are the
outcome of several years' discussion with my friend Paul
Cockshott (and have been influenced in some respects by the
work of Farjoun and Machover). We have a number of
publications dealing with the use of a labor-time calculus for
planning purposes, including a recent book, Towards a New
Socialism (e-mail me for details if you wish), and our general
thoughts on the LTV are quite closely related to the ideas in these
works; but we have not yet written up our stuff on the LTV itself.
We do have two lengthy documents on the subject, which we are
willing to share under the right circumstances, but they are more
at the level of notes than even working papers.
3. While I understand Gil Skillman's suggestion that I start out
from vol. 1, chap. 1 of Capital, I shall not do so. I think there
are several good reasons for accepting the LTV in some form, but
the argument given by Marx at the beginning of Capital *is not
one of them* (IMO). I will have some comments to make about that
argument, but not at first.
End of preface.
End of first posting.
==========================
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(910) 759-5762
==========================
