On Tue, 25 Jul 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >So you are saying that you must know prices to determine value? Now, two >questions: (1) what is your theory of price determination (and what kind >of >price it is), and (2) if value is defined in labor-times, how is the >labor-time quantified? > >Cheers, ajit sinha >_______________________ >John Ernst replies: > >Yes. I am saying you need to know prices to determine value. > >1) For me, a theory of price determination is inseparable from a theory of >accumulation. > Ultimately, the type of prices of concern would be market prices. >________________________ >But the question is, what theory do you have to determine "market prices"? >Second, how do you get to "value" from these "market prices"? AS >_________________________ > >(2) Abstract labor time is meaured in units of time. I do not think it is >entirely > accurate to say that Marxian values are defined in terms of time. If we >did that > it is not clear to me what role exchange value would have. That is, the >only way > value finds expression is in terms of exhange value. > >The Best, > >John >__________________________ >Then, what is the unit in which you measure "Marxian value"? > Cheers, ajit sinha John Ernst's response: Ajit, Response to comment 2. Give me a break. Units of time are hours, minutes, etc. Do these hours and minutes refer to concrete labor hours directly? No. For Marx, the only concrete labor that is immediately abstract is that labor which produces the money commodity. ____________________________ Sure I'll give you a break. Anybody deserves a break. But these are the most fundamental problems in Marxist theories, so it is paramount that we clearify these issues rather than take a break. Particularly when there are people on the net who keep waving flags and calling names when it comes to value theory etc. As far as your statement that the "immediately abstract labor is that labor which produces the money commodity" is false, because money commodity as any other commodity is not produced by just labor but labor assisted with other means of production, i.e. constant capital that contributes to the value of money commodity. So you need to know the labor-value of the constant capital (which is not the money commodity) that contributes to producing the money commodity. So this take of defining abstract labor won't work. ajit _______________________________ John Continues: Thus, in reading Marx's references to hours of abstract labor, I am clear that those hours of abstract labor are known only to us ex post and not ex ante. This would be awful if the point of his work were to develop a theory of prices in which the prices are to be deduced from or totally determined by hours of concrete labor. The point is to explain reality and not to derive it. For Marx, the essential purpose of CAPITAL was to "lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society." Did he complete the task? I think we would agree he did not. Yet I know of no one who seems to have tired harder or been possibily more successful. ________________________________ But this is all rhetoric John. The question I asked was a very simple and straight forward one. What is the unit in which you measure "Marxian value", if this concept has a quantitative dimention? You seem to deny that labor-time is the correct unit. But then you don't give us any other unit. If you think money commodity is the unit, then as I have explained above--production of money commodity does not and cannot represent an expenditure of abstract labor per se. You are back to the general question of how to define "abstract labor" and aggregate labor-time. ajit _________________________________ John goes on: Ajit, your questions suggest that you think Marx had it wrong about value and prices. _________________________________ Not at all. But I think most of the people on the value debate in the 80's who took upon themself to interpreting the concept of value in Marx interpreted it quite incorrectly and went round and round in circle. As you are finding yourself unable to answer very simple and fundamental questions. If you give the kind of importance to "market prices" in determining commodity values without even having a theory of "market prices" then you are in a totally hopeless situation. ajit __________________________________ John Goes on: Let us assume you are right. I do not think it is mistaken to note that when economists have a theory of price determination, they have little else. __________________________________ But it is you who needs a theory of price determination more than anybody else. Because you claim that one needs to know "market prices" to know Marxian value. Since you are doing Marxian theory, where value is the central concept, how can you even take one step without having a theory of market price determination. I don't think you need market prices or any other prices to determine labor-value. It is you who needs it. ajit _______________________________________ John goes on: Response to (1) In developing a theory of accumulation, I do think market prices will be important. I would add that market values will also be of import. But until we gain some clarity on accumulation, it would be premature to say that a theory of prices (market or other) is possible. I am, of course, assuming that you are using the idea of a price theory in the standard fashion. Concern over price theory in itself leads economists to believe that apples do not fall from trees since theory teaches that apples are stationary at each and every point in time. _________________________________ This is hard to understand. The question was how is "market prices" determined? and how does this determine value? ajit Cheers, ajit sinha
