I believe you’re correct as a matter of old school Communist ideology. Class struggle is an amoral battle between classes asserting their interests. Old style socialists and communists seem very different to me than their modern day US counterparts, who more explicitly justify their arguments on moral grounds.
I’d argue, however, that Marx and Marxism are shot through with moralisms, starting with the Labor Theory of Value, Surplus Value, etc. Any theory of Objective value is implicitly a morality.
I’d argue, however, that Marx and Marxism are shot through with moralisms, starting with the Labor Theory of Value, Surplus Value, etc. Any theory of Objective value is implicitly a morality.
Marxian value theory is not normative axiology; it’s a positive but partial theory of price formation and certain macroeconomic variables which is true in some worlds but not others.
(This is not to deny that people who try to change the world but deny being moralists are confused on that point or using language differently.)
No, because “value” had a pre-existing non-normative meaning in classical economics distinct from price. (Since this use of the word was already linked to value from the first, the phrase “labor theory of value” is redundant and as far as I know did not appear until marginalism dispensed with value.) A decent overview of the intellectual history if you are hopelessly nerdy enough to care is Ajit Sinha’s Theories of Value from Adam Smith to Piero Sraffa.
It is of course reasonable to argue that the categories of classical economics were fundamentally confused and inferior to those of marginalism (or for that matter some other system,) but to do so on the basis that “value” referred to something normative is to be fundamentally confused yourself about what classical economists were saying, like assuming that a “final cause” for Aristotle must be the most recent cause to act on something.
I’d argue, however, that Marx and Marxism are shot through with moralisms, starting with the Labor Theory of Value, Surplus Value, etc. Any theory of Objective value is implicitly a morality.
Agreed. They were reflectively inconsistent in much the same way the OP’s mother is inconsistent with respect to her (physical) non-realism.
I believe you’re correct as a matter of old school Communist ideology. Class struggle is an amoral battle between classes asserting their interests. Old style socialists and communists seem very different to me than their modern day US counterparts, who more explicitly justify their arguments on moral grounds.
I’d argue, however, that Marx and Marxism are shot through with moralisms, starting with the Labor Theory of Value, Surplus Value, etc. Any theory of Objective value is implicitly a morality.
Marxian value theory is not normative axiology; it’s a positive but partial theory of price formation and certain macroeconomic variables which is true in some worlds but not others.
(This is not to deny that people who try to change the world but deny being moralists are confused on that point or using language differently.)
Then they should have called it a labor theory of price, not a labor theory of value.
Marx was the worst kind of moralist and idealist—one that confuses his ideas for reality, and thinks he is objective and scientific.
No, because “value” had a pre-existing non-normative meaning in classical economics distinct from price. (Since this use of the word was already linked to value from the first, the phrase “labor theory of value” is redundant and as far as I know did not appear until marginalism dispensed with value.) A decent overview of the intellectual history if you are hopelessly nerdy enough to care is Ajit Sinha’s Theories of Value from Adam Smith to Piero Sraffa.
It is of course reasonable to argue that the categories of classical economics were fundamentally confused and inferior to those of marginalism (or for that matter some other system,) but to do so on the basis that “value” referred to something normative is to be fundamentally confused yourself about what classical economists were saying, like assuming that a “final cause” for Aristotle must be the most recent cause to act on something.
Agreed. They were reflectively inconsistent in much the same way the OP’s mother is inconsistent with respect to her (physical) non-realism.