Doug Henwood wrote: >I really hate to get into this old debate on this list, but I can't let a >remark this ignorant pass uncorrected. Only someone who hadn't read Marx >(or someone having read who didn't understand a word) could make this >argument. I don't want to reply in kind. It is, simply, possible to reject the labor theory of value without being ignorant. Many economists reject it. I find their arguments persuasive. The controversy, at this point in history, with the fall of virtually every state-run collective economy in the world, is over *what share* of the collective enterprise of production should belong to the provider of labor, and what to the provider of capital. This is what bargaining and market power should determine, not the political elite. When collective groups of workers face collective groups of owners to bargain for their share of the productive surplus, the distribution is, as I see it, fair. As to the argument that it's only fair if the workers *are* the owners, why should those workers who choose to consume all their share have as much ownership of the means of production as those who defer consumption and invest? Once we allow for different shares of the collective ownership, then we are recognizing the distinction between classes of workers. I conclude by apologizing to list readers who may not think that this debate belongs on this list. I contribute these thoughts because I don't agree that one must be a marxist to be a feminist or to be concerned about the environment. When capitalism is blamed for all the ills of humanity, I would like the opportunity to defend it. H.C. Ellis
