On Robert Paul Wolff's Transcendental Interpretation of Marx's Labor Theory of Value

In a recent article Robert Paul Wolff has argued that Marx's theory of capitalist exploitation is incorrect, in that its ground is the premiss that labor is the source of all value.1 This, of course, is a well-rehearsed objection to Marx, but Wolff gives it a novel twist. He notes that the defense of this premise in the opening pages of Capital is inadequate, but he is not troubled by this ‘bad argument,’ for he sees Marx's real argument as something else: the (implicit) claim that unless labor is the source of all value, an adequate account of profit is impossible. In other words Marx is seen to be making a transcendental argument: an inquiry into the conditions for the possibility of profit. Wolff proceeds to argue that Marx goes astray here, but not so far astray that a valid transcendental argument, faithful to Marx's essential insight, cannot be charted.

Argument (complex analysis) · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy) · Premise · Transcendental number · Value (mathematics) · Mathematics · Philosophy · Political Economy and Marxism

• A Political Economy of Modernism

  Open Access•Ronald Schleifer•Political Economy of Modernism•2018

  Add to list