> In a review of Edmund Wilson's _To The Finland Station_ written many decades ago, CLR James remarked that Marx's value theory is more properly referred to as a value theory of labor, not a "labor theory of value".
>
> Jame's distinction is key, and great Marxian thinker that he was, he knew what Marx was getting at.
>
> Anytime some self-proclaimed critic of Marx speaks of an alleged "labor theory of value" by Marx, i.e. anytime they demonstrate that they think "Marx" is the German word for "Ricardo", that's an indication that they have nothing serious to say about Marx.
>
> So thank you for helping me to reach the decision that this lifetime is too short for reading Joan Robinson.
Jim F and SA have said pretty much everything I would say here.
Like Michael I had thought 'value theory of labour' came from Diane Elson, and it's a formulation I've always liked. It's one that survives contact with supply-and-demand analysis, too. I've heard so many times in responses I've got since I first presented a version of that Jacobin piece at a conference a few weeks ago that Marx never intended his value theory to explain relative prices. That's fine, and I agree that Marx did something much more interesting with the concept of value. But I think it's a bit much to accuse people who do find the many statements about relative prices in Capital to have been so obtuse that they missed the whole point. What's wrong with just getting on with the analysis of relative prices while keeping what we find so valuable in Marx, the 'value theory of labour'?
Alright, I better get back to work. If anyone is interested I wrote some more in the typically epic comments thread at Crooked Timber.
Mike