Nitzan thinks that because he can't numerically prove the labor theory of value, then there's no such thing as exploitation. That's essentially the official bourgeois interpretation of Marx's political economy, but Nitzan remains radical in his larger discussions, which seem to me to be basically unrelated to his views in the LTOV.
Eub and Andie, meanwhile, seem to want to rescue Marx from himself, also because you can't numerically prove the LTOV.
I believe that, despite his scorn for Proudhon's "all property is theft" line, which may seem to imply that Marx thought _no_ property was theft, pointing out that capital is stolen property was the central aim of Marx's work.
And there's another issue. The labor theory of value is both a concept for ethical accounting if work and income, and also a by-product of a philosophical system that places primary emphasis on human labor as a special thing. I like that philosophy.
As to socialism, I'm not in favor of every gang of workers directly controlling every penny of what they make in their factory. I am in favor of using the labor theory of value and labor philosophy as a way of bolstering the argument for living wages and nice work conditions for all workers. Beyond that, significant slices of all workplace surpluses should be collected via taxes and subjected to direct democratic spending, with a robust welfare state and guarantee against poverty as the constitutional premise. Marx's labor philosophy and his LTOV imply that all able and disabled workers (all people, eventually) ought to be as smart as possible with what they make. That means democratic social governance of the economic surplus.
Cheers!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Mike Ballard
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:58 AM
> To: lbo lbo
> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Missing the Marx
>
> Michael wrote to Justin:
>
> OK. You read Marx very differently than I do. You
> also take the CGP
> "marginal notes" way more seriously than I do, and you
> read it
> differently
> than I do.
>
> Good luck on your path. I prefer mine.
> ***************
>
> Ive come to this conclusion as well. The social
> product of labour *should* belong to the associated
> producers. That it doesn't within the legal confines
> of contracts and justice as put forward by the
> capitalist State's system of laws, laws which
> legitmize the marketplace of commodites, is something
> I concede. I think Marx conceded it as well. Justin
> agrees that the wages system must be abolished, but
> wishes to go on with some kind of market commodity
> production. I dont know why anybody would argue for
> such a society, but so be it. I agree more with the
> thrust of your posts, but I don't doubt Justin's
> committment to greater freedom than what now exists
> under capitalist democracy. But what the hell. In
> the end, we must ALL decide together what kind of
> communist society we want to create and any step
> towards more freedom is a step in the direction of
> progress, IMO.
>
> Socialist greetings,
> Mike B)
>
> =====
> *******************************************************************
> Direct action gets satisfaction.
> http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk