@ Putin33, Draugnar, and obiwanobiwan

When I find an inspirational verse, I usually don't pay much attention to the context. A good verse is a good verse. If you start looking at the verse's surroundings, it makes the verse less special. In my particular NLT Bible, Paul is discussing circumcision on the same page as Galatians 6:4. You have to remember that the New Testament of the Bible is (with all due respect to God) a mash-up of different letters from different apostles to various troublesome churches. A lot of the letters in the latter half of The New Testament were sent to churches with similar problems, so, consequently, a lot of those books discuss similar issues.

"Kalecki rejects both the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value - both of which are rejections of core Marxist theory."

The labour theory of value is simply wrong. You might not be comfortable with the fact that is refuted through theory rooted in mathematics but it is wrong. Many things Marx wrote were wrong. If you believe that everything Marx wrote more than a century ago is right, then you are a dogmatic and Marx is your prophet.

Furthermore, Marx stated that value is a social phenomenon. The fact that he then equaled value only to embodied labour means that he was imitating Ricardo more than his own thoughts.

What is the labor theory of value? I have looked it up before. But I suspect I don't fully understand it. I asked Putin once whether everyone would be paid the same after the revolution (so to speak) and he said no. How is this ostensible anomaly consistent with the labor theory of value. I would be interested to hear Putin's response too.

@obi: the analogy is perfect: people defend Richard III because they see his villianization as an attack on their culture with political implications for the present.

@Draug: I believe that Putin is an atheist ex-Catholic. He just chooses his terms with an eye toward upsetting the largest possible number of people.

Does Richard III have to be real for the play to be great piece of art?

@obi: the analogy is perfect: people defend Richard III because they see his villianization as an attack on their culture with political implications for the present.

@Draug: I believe that Putin is an atheist ex-Catholic. He just chooses his terms with an eye toward upsetting the largest possible number of people.

And your interpretation of Jewish law is, well, wrong. The laws you're reading might have been absolute, but there was plenty of room for mercy in the interpretation. That's what made the role of the judges so important. Remember that Jesus didn't criticize the law; he criticized the lawyers who interpreted the law in a way that created unfair burdens on the poor.

@Gunfighter - A good verse only has meaning if properly interpreted in context, though. And while the books attributed to Paul are letters, each is a complete letter and therefore must be viewed as a whole unto itself. Or at least in paragraphs so that the entire thought of that section is understood.

@spyman

Labour theory of value states that the only factor of production (usually lumped into cathegories of labour, capital and land) that is capable of creating value is labour. Even when it seems that capital creates value, it is simply a case of labour creating value indirectly through capital (the case of land is similar, although e.g. Locke treated is as a creator of value too but he argued that it's contribution is so small (1%) that we can abstract from it and think only about labour). I don't think it is necessary to repeat Marx's labour theory of value here, the brief summary is: "value is labour and surplus value is surplus labour."

The unequality in remuneration is consistent with labour theory of value because of diversity of human skills and abilities. Although economists talk about about labour as if it was a homogenous quantity, it isn't, that is only a simplification. One can easily imagine a worker who is able to produce twice more output per working hour than another worker. He might've spent the same time in his job as the other guy but he was apparently able to supply twice more labour and therefore should be paid twice more. This strict meritocratism first appeared in the work of French socialist Saint-Simon and Marx adopted it as a model for the first phase after the overthrow of capitalism. Although the workers would be freed from exploitation, the economic chaos following the revolution would need this form of work organization in order to create conditions necessary for the second phase, the full-fledged communism (similar to Fourier's utopia) "in which each person would only receive according to his needs while would give according to his abilities."