>
>Justin writes:>I'm not accusing Bob of being a neoSraffian, although
>(having
>discussed economics with him extensively over the years), I'll say that if
>he uses value theory, it's never something he's uttered in print or speech
>that I've read or heard.<
>
>No, you were praising him for being a neoSraffian (though I for one aren't
>sure what's meant by the "neo" here).
I think I'm the authority on what I was doing. To make it absolutely crystal
clear, I disclaim the proposition that Brenner is a neoSraffian. Brenner is
not a neoSraffian. If I ever said anything that may have mislead some people
into thinking otherwise, I hereby disavow that construction and apologize
for the misconception. OK? Got that out of the way?
Now, what I meant to say is that, although he is not and never has been a
neoSraffian, Brenner does something that is analogous to what the N-Ss do,
which is to work with the relations among prices, profits. technical
prodiction processes, etc., and not try to explain these in value terms. Am
I being clear enough yet?
You were saying that Brenner was
>applying neoSraffian analysis,
No,a sexplained above.
showing that Marx's law of value need not
>play a role.
Yes, Brenner does that, but not by using N-S theory.
>
> >You make too much of my neoSraffian remark, I just mean that like them,
>he
>sticks to what Marx officially regards as surface phenomena,and does hnot
>try to explain these phemonena in value terms, but in terms of
>their interrelations.<
>
>why "officially"? Marx didn't define what was "officially" Marxist. In
>fact,
>he rejected the idea of orthodoxy ("je ne suis pas une Marxiste").
The "I am not a Marxist" line is mine. When I say Marx officially regards
certan phenomena as surface, I means that when he talks value theory. he
suggests that thesea re in need of value theoretical explanation. As Gil
Skillman has (to my mind but not yours) shown, there is another strain in
Marx that does not require invocation of value theory, what Gil calls
historical materialist explanation. Neither Gil nor Marx are N-S either . ..
. .
>Again, we don't know that Brenner eschews value theory.
Ask him. I believe that he does. You don't know for sure that Sen does
either, since he has never said anything about it one way or another, but
it's a reasonable inference that he doesn't. I have heard Brennerdance away
from questions involving value, or reformulate them into non-value forms,
scores of times over 15 or so years.
He clearly agrees
>with the Marxian vision of history ("people make history, but not exactly
>as
>they please").
So do I, and I think value theory is empty and intellectually harmful.
Marx's value theory is simply an application of that theory:
>in Marx, it's people that make commodities as part of the historical
>process
>in the political economy, constrained and shaped by the social relations of
>production, so they don't do it as they please, but in an alienated way.
Oh, if that's all there is too it ;> But it isn't, is it?
I'm
>sure that Brenner would agree that "surface phenomena" such as profits are
>not the result of natural scarcity, individual tastes, and the like, but
>are
>instead a product of human labor under the thumb of the capitalist mode of
>production. His discussion of serfdom vs. capitalism in the so-called
>"Brenner debate" suggests as much.
Sure, I agree with him, and so far as you describe it, I am a value theorist
too. Unfortunately I don't think "a and "embodied labor" are very useful
ways of talking abour exploitation, alienation, and the tyranny of markets.
In particular, they do it explain thesephenomena. On your vbersion as stated
here, value talk mereexpresses these phenomena in more opaque language.
jks
>JD
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
