>
>At 08:43 PM 8/6/2002 -0400, Gordon wrote:
>>I was recently involved in a discussion of the labor theory
>>of value in which one of my interlocutors asserted that it
>>was used in a purely normative manner, i.e. as above, the
>>wokers _ought_ to _own_ the means of production because it
>>is created by their labor. This seems like a very Lockean
>>argument to me, what with the oughtings and the ownings,
W says: >
>This arguments offers a powerful, logically coherent argument for wealth
>redistribution that stands on a principle rather than appeals to pity,
>charity, altruism, etc. The issues of intellectual property rights to it
>are, at best, of tertiary importance.
>
That's as may be. It's not Marx's argument; he expressly rejects it. It also depoends on a set of doubtful assumptions about ownership of self and one's own labor. The best version of the Lockean argument from labor's creation of the surplus is GA Cohen's, which, incidentally, dispenses with the LTV. But the argument is flawed. If you want an argument for wealth redistribution that doesn't depend on unselfish emotions--though it escapes me why socialists, whose whole project depends on solidarity, would want to dispense with unselfish emotions!--there are others. For example, Rawls' argument purports to procced solely from self-interest. Utilitarian arguments proceed from diminishing marginal returns. Marx's argument proceeds from the maximization of freedom. And so forth.
Personally I think solidaritistic arguments are preferable. If the mass of working people do not see themselves as united as a class in solidarity with one another, we will not be able to make any arguments effective. If they feel that they share common interests, they will have the solidaristic emotions that are necessary to make the expropriation of the expropriators effective.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com