>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
>[Marx] mocks those who proceed from moralism to economics.
>
Doug says:
>And you fully believe him? Isn't a lot of the scientific stuff just a
>mask for what is, at base, a moral/ethical stance.
You know I don't. Not only have I said here, in this discussion, that Marx
has a strong normative ethical view, I'll add that it informs his research
program, structures the questions he asks--like everyone else. But he
correctly thinks that the truth of his positive conclusions does not depend
on his value orientation; and this rebukes those who, like DD, suggest that
the point of the LTV is to express some some of fundamntal human equality,
or those who maintain that the point of the LTV is to show thatw orkers are
entitled to the value they, allegedly, alone produce, as in the canonical
version (not Marx's) of the Marxist theory of exploitation, via some labor
theory of properyt entitlements. Also, Marx's antimoralism (though
inconsistently held) rebukes those who purport to adhere to Marx's own views
more religiously than I.
But being too
>hardheaded, and a good 19th century thinker, Marx didn't want to
>appear that way?
>
Well, he didn't want to appear to bea mere moralist. Nothing wrong with
that.
jks
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
