[lbo-talk] Joan Robin's "Economic Philosophy", and Karl Popper

[Mike Ballard]

-- 
How wealth is produced and exchanged is what Marx, Smith and Ricardo were
talking about and forms the basis of the labour theory of value for what's
valued is wealth.  While it is true that wealth presents itself as a vast
accumulation of commodities for sale in a capitalist political economy, it
also presents itself as a commodity in simpler modes of production.  The
point is that the exchange-value is measured by the socially necessary
labour time it takes to produce the wealth and recognition of same by
buyers and sellers in the marketplace of commodities.

**************************
It can't be that simple, since "wealth" was continuously produced for
thousands of years before capitalist relations of production emerged.
Abstract labor and "value" are unique to capitalism. Wealth (including a
surplus) is NOT unique to capitalism. The LTV does _not_ explain wealth; it
explains _value_, which does not exist prior to capitalism.

Carrol

************************

JF writes: "This BTW seems also to have been the reason why Joan Robinson
abjured the label of Marxist, even though she greatly admired Marx. For her
to be a Marxist required accepting the labor theory of value and dialectical
materialism. As a good English empiricist she rejected both as metaphysics."

If socially necessary labour time ceased being applied to the production of
goods and services, no wealth would be produced. That's always swayed
me toward the labour theory of value.

Mike B)