>
>I thought I was pretty mild.

Referring to your interlocutor as desperate and inward turning is 
clearly not mild, but I suspect that I shall be blamed for the rancor 
on the list as I was supposed to take the heat for Paul Phillips' 
explosion.


>
>>
>>Moreover, note that I raised the question whether and how any theory
>>other than labor value makes sense of moral depreciation and the
>>paradoxes to which it gives rise. You give no reply.
>
>Haven't really thought about it.

but this was my reply to your query. Yes of course the input means of 
production
can be said to embody/represent indirect and direct labor time, you 
concede, but why does this make them values, you seemed to ask.

And my reply was that their character as values is revealed by the 
threat that they will undergo moral depreciation, i.e., come to 
represent less socially necessary abstract labor time, and the 
compulsion the ruling class puts on the working class to consume them 
before they are morally depreciated.

This is how Marx explains what puzzled JS Mill:  the best tools for 
the reduction of labor become unfailing means for the prolongation 
and intensification of the working day. Marx explains this puzzle by 
understanding these means of production as values-in-process, not 
simply given technical conditions of production.


>>
>
>A fallacy: Your theory preducts that there will crises. The theory 
>posits X. There are crises. So X exists. I have argued, however, 
>that the main lines of the theoey can be reconstituted without X and 
>still give us the same results.

You're not reading carefully. The theory explains both the recurrence 
of general, protracted crises and the means by which they are 
overcome. The law of value thus pits so called orthodox Marxists 
against underconsumptionist social democrats.



>  Also, I note that Marxisn crisis theory is highly underdeveloped, 
>and IMHO the best version of it, Brenner's, does not use value 
>theory. Anyway, I'm plum tuckered out.

Does Brenner agree that he does not use value theory? As far as I can 
see, he is in part saying that the full value of commodities could 
not be realized due to international competition. But Marx's crisis 
theory is able to explain the onset of crisis even when demand is 
strong enough for commodities to be realized at their full value.

rb

Reply via email to