On Sun, 13 Mar 1994 23:52:00 -0800 Gil said:
>This is to continue my dialogue with Allin C. concerning the results
>he and a coauthor recently obtained, which are consistent with
>earlier work by Shaikh and others, to the effect that values diverge
>very little from prices of production in fact. I am not denigrating
>this work by the way, in pointing out that it doesn't really support
>the validity of the LTV, just the conclusion that compositions of
>capital do not as a matter of fact diverge significantly across
>sectors. Rather this is potentially a happy finding for those, like
>me, who are not willing to go the whole route with Roemer's non-value
>theoretic restatement of exploitation as a normative concept.
Much as it pains me, I have to agree with Gil here. In my reading,
Marx was as interested in price/value deviations as he was in their
connection. While the price/value connection reflects the (covert)
socialization of production, price/value deviation are part of
Marx's theory of how the level of empirical appearances deceives us
and hides class nature of capitalism from the casual observer or
what he termed the "vulgar" economist. That is, price/value
deviations are part of his theory of commodity fetishism. (oops --
I used the "F word." ;-) )
On the other hand, and here comes the crass commercial announcement,
see Devine and Dymski's article in the 1991 ECONOMICS AND PHILOSOPHY
and our 1992 reply to Roemer. We argue that Roemer's theory of
capitalist exploitation doesn't really explain the phenomenon under
study. For example, he assumes but does not explain the scarcity of
means of production. To explain that scarcity, one must break out of
Roemer's Walrasian strait-jacket. Further, to have a
good *normative* theory of exploitation, one has to start with a
coherent positive theory, which Roemer does not have.
>No, not at all. The indictment of the LTV is that 1) it is based on
>invalid logic (if based on any logic at all; many, for example,
>disavow Marx's _C_, VI, Ch. 1 argument as an attempt to establish a
>logical ground for the LTV); and 2) labor values, at best, are
>superfluous constructions. If prices of production are the question
>(about which more later), then one can go directly from production
>and market conditions to production prices; there is no need, even in
>principle, to go from production and market conditions to values to
>prices of production.
This is pure Steedman. In my article on Marx's law of value (in
RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY), I argue that such criticisms should
be taken seriously. Reading Marx, it turns out that values form
a tautologically-true accounting framework. Commodities have
both prices and values, which are determined simultaneously, so
that one can't determine prices from values or vice-versa.
To my mind, values (and the price=value
assumption) are conceptual tools (heuristics) that Marx uses to
break through the fetishism of commodities and reveal the class
nature of capitalist society. As such, Steedman's critique is
an excellent criticism of a Ricardian "labor theory of price"
(a price theory) but not a criticism of Marx (who presented what
might be termed -- gasp! -- a sociological theory of the economy).
>No one is arguing that as a matter of fact, values don't closely
>approximate prices of production. Of course they might. But it is
>well to remember on this score that even prices of production, while
>necessarily more fundamental than values (since surface capitalist
>reality, the reality to which capitalists and workers respond, is
>composed of prices, not values), are themselves a construction. They
>don't correspond necessarily with absolute prices out there, thanks
>to monopoly power, market failures, unequalized profit rates, etc.etc.
I don't see why appearances are "more fundamental." We see the
sun come up every day and go down every night. It appears that the
sun is rotating around the earth. But most astronomers would argue
that more fundamental is the fact that the earth itself is rotating
and the sun standing still (relative to the earth's rotation). Just
because we don't see the earth's rotation, and because plants, animals,
and many people act on the assumption that the earth does not rotate,
should we assume that the world does not turn?
> On this score recall
>Roemer's point that in a world which admits of at least some degree
>of factor substitution in production, it is much more valid to say
>that prices determine values, rather than vice-versa.
In the accounting-framework interpretation of values, factor
substitution (to use the non-Marxian lingo) is irrelevant.
BTW, I can cite several cases in vol. I of CAPITAL where Marx
notes the substitution of means of production for labor-power
or vice-versa in response to "relative prices." Not being
a neoclassical price theorist, he didn't stress this phenomenon.
Rather, he stressed the dynamics of accumulation.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
