On the Obsolescence of the Marxian Theory of Value: A Critical Review

Until recently, to assert at the same time adhesion to the Marxian paradigm and rejection of the labour theory of value would have been considered blasphemy. A pathbreaking iconoclast in this respect was Joan Robinson, although she did not really speak from within Marxism. For her, value was a blatantly metaphysical concept with no oper-ational content. `No point of substance in Marxs argument depends upon the labour theory of value. Voltaire remarked that it is possible to kill a flock of sheep by witchcraft if you give them plenty of arsenic at the same time. The sheep, in this figure, may well stand for the complacent apologists of capitalism; Marxs penetrating insight and bitter hatred of oppression supply the arsenic, while the labour theory of value provides the incan-tations (1966:22). Nowadays this view is gaining strength and is defended by many of the brightest young left economists. Sign of success, they have their own label: Sraffian Marxists. This review article is concerned with a new publication within this tendency: Lippis Value and Naturalism. It could well join Steedmans Marx after Sraffa as a seminal piece in the assault on the Marxian theory of value, from within Marxism. Lippis thesis is exactly the same as Robinsons: the labour theory of value is both untenable and unnecessary, and should thus be abandoned. Taken separately Lippis arguments are not really new. Neverthe-less, his book gives an impression of strength and conviction, which I would attribute to the authors single-mindedness. All his arguments centre around one objective: to demonstrate the obsolescence of the Marxian theory of value. The result is a well-argued and challenging plea. Undoubtedly, Lippi feels that he has advanced unanswerable arguments which conclude the debate. For him, only obscurantists can still defend this theory... Although I do not share his thesis, I consider his book an interesting and solidly constructed work. In discussion of it, I will first expound Lippis views in more detail and then present my criticisms. To this end, I shall discuss first the