Roemer models the economy as a system of exchanges, which is the criterion I suggested earlier for defining neoclassical economics. From that perspective (and assuming single exchange equilibria) one can criticize only the distribution of initial endowments, as he has done. (His political economy consists of the effects that asset inequality have on the political system.) Once we switch to the view that economic institutions go beyond exchange and have irreducible social and political aspects, we are in a much larger and more complex moral universe. For me, being on the left means that I think the notions of human rights (Kant), democracy, and egalitarianism ought to be applied. These do not depend on acceptance of a labor theory of either economic or moral value, although one version of egalitarianism (reward for contribution) is consistent with a moral LTV. My own view is that reward for contribution may be pragmatically justified but is difficult to defend as a principal basis for deciding what is "fair". This is because most of the determinants of what an individual is able to contribute are beyond her control, because "deservingness" is only one component of "fairness", and because, in practice, a reward-for-contribution system is likely to lead to great inequalities. In connection with the LTV, recall the various methods that have been suggested for converting many hours of "simple" labor into an hour of "skilled" labor (that slippery concept of "skill") and the problems posed by housework, disabilities that keep people out of the labor force, unpublished full-time poets and gigless musicians, etc. Peter Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > > aka Dorman: > > Even the Frakfurt School's criticism of pragmatism seems wanting > after Rorty, so I am not going to take issue with your own (pragmatic) > approach to ethics - even if I still think that Kant's ethical philosophy > was a theoretical breakthrough. Only want to remind you that Jeffrey > Reiman uses the Kantian notion of a universal moral law to defend the > traditional Marxist interpretation of exploitation - that expoitation > occurs during production through the *forced* extraction of surplus > labor - against the Roemerian definition which says that exploitation > is a result of an unjust distribution of assets. Reiman calls his theory > the 'labor theory of moral value'. >
