You can totally say you’re a Marxists while repudiating the LTV. You would not be a Marxist, however.
I’d wanna ask you about David Harvey then, but outside of his reading of Capital he’s known for having some odd opinions. He’s also the only person I can think of who both claims to be a Marxist and doesn’t go along with LTV.
I would say he’s a Marx scholar and not a Marxist. Kinda like how there are atheists who study the Bible.
Eh ltv isn’t really Marx’s and if it were it would be one of his many significant contributions to various fields.
Marx may not have been the first theorist to come up with it, but the LToV is still foundational to most of the economic theory that did have its origin in his work. Furthermore, Marx did make contributions to the LToV itself, and in that sense it is one of his significant contributions to various fields.
It’d still be reasonable to call yourself a Marxist if you ascribe to other parts of his framework, especially in specific academic contexts. And in revolutionary contexts I doubt most non-academic revolutionaries fully understand the mechanisms laid out in Capital, so it seems inconsequential really.
A person doesn’t need to fully understand evolution by natural selection to consider themselves a Darwinist (biologically speaking, obviously I’m not talking about social Darwinism here). But if they reject evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for the diversity of species, then they are not Darwinists. Similarly, you don’t have to be able to explain the LToV let alone its nitty-gritty details, but if you claim that the theory is false, you probably shouldn’t be calling yourself a Marxist revolutionary.
Class analysis doesn’t inherently require ltv either.
Class analysis requires a mechanism for how one class exploits another economically, a mechanism that the LToV provides.
I do think ltv makes more sense than modern models, but Marx was basically using bourgeois theory to critique itself,
And that critique is what extended it beyond being merely bourgeois theory.
and arguably the same can be done using the more abstract modern models.
Maybe so. But are those models refutations of the LToV or elaborations on it? In either case, do you have examples?
And in revolutionary contexts I doubt most non-academic revolutionaries fully understand the mechanisms laid out in Capital
Agree, one doesn’t have to be a Marxist to be revolutionary (see also: anarchist comrades) nor does one need to be a Marxist to be class-conscious. But it would be incorrect to call such a person a Marxist.
Marx was basically using bourgeois theory to critique itself
Yes, Capital was a critique of political economy, but not an entirely negative critique. He accepted the LTV in its basic structure. The main difference was clarifying what kind of labor counts as the content of value. He did this by applying a dialectical analysis, going from the particular to the concrete to the abstract and again in the opposite direction[1]. Only by doing this — in the process showing where in their analyses the earlier political economists went wrong — was Marx able to right the ship and arrive at the conclusions which now define Marxism.
*edited a brain fart, also added Rubin details
I. I. Rubin, Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value ↩︎
When liberals ask “do you believe in the ltov?” they’re poisoning the well by implying that Marxism is some completely unscientific religion. No, the LToV is more like a definition of what Marx means when he says “value” and libs love to smugly say “that isn’t what value means according to xyz though” okay then we’re talking about something else aren’t we?
I mean I personally find the ltov to be more a more useful definition than other definitions of “value” because of what Marx does with it but to understand that you would have to read Capital and that’s too much commitment for a smuglord’s twitter post.
Understanding things in context was another thing Marx was big on so I’m positive he meant it to be taken that way.
By what means does the linen become a coat?
That’s the point logos235 is making right? That without the labor theory of value the whole thing falls apart
