I have not read Wood on Marx, so I think I should stop knocking him, and stick to what I know about. A propos, Matt writes this:
“A deeper question, one I'd been meaning to ask, is how this stuff relates to the (pretty strong, I think) case made by people like Bowels and Gintis on the one hand, and John Roemer, on the other, that Marx's account of exploitation can't work on its own, because, from the technical presentation given, any factor in production can equally count as the "exploited" factor. I'm not an expert, but the presentation seems pretty good to me, in both Bowels and Gintis and Roemer. Roemer, at least, thinks this shows that we need a moral theory showing that the treatment of labor is substantively unjust, and that without this, Marx's view doesn't go anywhere. (At least, that's how I understand his account.) It seems like a pretty important issue to deal with, but one that takes us away from "standard" Marxism in some important ways.”
I was the one who told Bowles and Gintis about this. I recall having lunch with Sam and Herb in 1979 or 1980 at Beardsley’s, a lovely restaurant in Northampton, MA now sadly defunct, and telling them what I had discovered. When I proved the theorem in 1979, I was very excited. It was the only thing I had ever actually proved, and I fully understood how important it was. However, when I published the proof in my 1981 article, “A Critique and Reinterpretation of Marx’s Labor Theory of Value,” John Roemer wrote a comment pointing out that Josep Vegara had published a proof of the same proposition in his 1979 book Economía Política y Modeles Multisectoriales. As I remarked during my Brown talk, being the second person in the world to prove a theorem is not nothing, but it does not hold a candle to being the first.
Since that proof is at the heart of my deepest interpretation of Marx’s theories, I will just refer here to my 25,000 word summary of my work, archived on box.net.