[WS:] For that characterization to be accurate, it would have to be leveled against any philosopher tackling metaphysical questions. I do not think many people would argue that. Metaphysical questions cannot be answered in a way we can answer scientific questions, but this does not mean that they should not be asked. Their value lies in exposing limitations of the intellectual frames (so to speak) that are used to describe empirical world.
I think this is the main and enduring value of Marx's work - take the bourgeois metaphysics and turn it into its own opposite by using its own assumptions to arrive at conclusions that contradict those drawn by its initial proponents. In other words, it shows that the classical economic theory can be used to argue that capitalism is the highest level of economic rationality ever achieved, or a system so ridden with contradictions that it may collapse under its own weight. This exposes the metaphysical nature of classical economic theory that otherwise would pass for science - a very powerful critique one would think.
Labor theory of value (Ricardo's creation, not Marx's) value depends on what you want to use it for. If your goal is to explain, say, remuneration for an individual's input to the economy, it is not very useful, I am afraid. However, if your goal is to question certain strand of political-economic thinking that equates money with value and wants us to believe that owners who siphon off profits "create" jobs and other things we as society value, the the ltv does a splendid job indeed.
Wojtek
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Mike Ballard <swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> WS wrote:
>
> >From my pov, the question what determines value is fundamentally a
> metaphysical one (in the sense defined by Kant in "Prolegomena to Any
> Future Metaphysics"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics) -
> i.e. a question that we ask because asking such questions is a natural
> disposition of human reason, but it is not possible to answer it by
> rational means (i.e. as we answer questions in science.)
> ****************************
>
> In other words, Marx was full of shit for even attempting to write a critique of political-economy based on the labour theory of value.
>
> Mike B)
> ***********************************************************************
> Wobbly Times
> http://wobblytimes.blogspot.com/
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Wojtek http://wsokol.blogspot.com/