http://libcom.org/forums/theory/oilltvzizek-16052010
if you follow your argument through to its logical conclusion it takes you to something that says labour is not the sole source of exchange value (as you are positing nature as a creator/source of value), meaning profit can be made without exploitation of labour, which rather pulls the rug away from everything marx stood for
The dizzying velocity of the last 100 or so posts in the value theory thread have been overwhelming. What is of main interest to me, and perhaps to all those who have remained silent in the face of 206 postings and 7pages of argument, is how any of this directly informs the politics of the participants. How is a communist politics extracted from such a ‘technical’ discussion? My guess is that there is some sort of legitimation myth being developed (as framed by oisleep above) concerning the role of the proletariat through the LTV. The myth (an altogether other ‘transformation problem’) is developed along the lines of because all Value is derived from abstract labour and because this demonstrates the objective domination of manifested labour in the world around us, then this is the material/objective/rational basis for the assertion that the proletariat should therefore dictate through its activity according to its own interest as this is what is happening anyway (albeit in a mystified form). I may be wrong about this, but I cannot see how any necessary argument can be deduced along the lines of because of LTV therefore communist politics.
(no links please without a summary of the author's arguments)
Can comment on articles and discussions
if you actually read the thread, you'll find that i've pushed the idea that it doesn't really, and i've never claimed that it does
i.e. in various places on that thread i wrote
so not sure what kind of legitimisation myth i'm meant to be pushing given I think most of it is pretty much irrelevant, in practical terms, anyway