Marxian vs. bourgeios categories & new enclosures (relative sv)

[Roger Odisio]

At 06:17 PM 6/28/1999 +1000, rc-am wrote:
>yep, Rakesh, you said it much more eloquently than I did.
>
>> There is no classical-Marxian labor theory of value.<
>
>I'll add only that there's a passage in _the poverty of philosophy_ where
>Marx argues, contra Proudhon, that the labour theory of value cannot be "the
>revolutionary theory of the future", an argument which is central to
>comprehending the whole structure and gist of Marx's analysis of capital, and
>capitalism I think.  without this acknowledgement, marxism risks becoming
>repetition rather than critique.

Could you elaborate, Ange?  I get the part about the difference between the
imperatives of capital and capitalism involving the needs of labor, as
Lebowitz discussed.  But I'm having trouble linking that up to problems with
the labor theory  of value as a revolutionary agent.  To be sure, the labor
theory is a way to analyse capital's laws of motion.  But why is it
inadequate for a full-blown critique of capitalism (if that's what you mean)?