Charles Brown wrote:
> We'd be better off if today's economists stuck to Smith and Ricardo more, no ? They had a labor theory of value. Marx is only fully understandable by understanding the classicals, no ? Can't understand a science without understanding its historical development.
No and yes, but for a different reason than you imply, Charles. It's not just a matter of having a labor theory of value. One version of the classical labor theory of value, e.g., defined productive labor in general, without reference to capitalist social relations, as simply that which produces something useful. Smith's version was better than that. He argued that labor was productive only if it produced tangible goods that could be sold at a profit.
Marx rejected the former and modified Smith to include services--the nature of the commodity makes no difference to capital. He replaced the classical theories with a value theory that explains capitalism as exploitation (the difference between what labor produces and what it receives, between labor and labor power), and defines productive labor as the source of the surplus value expropriated by capital. That is the key point of difference between Marx and all classical labor theories of value.
Roger