Having read through the volumes of Capital and a number of books by others
on the basics of Marxian economic theory, I've developed a few opinions on
the Law of Value.
First, I think it (and the theory of surplus value) is the most successful
of all economic theories in explaining the facts of capitalism. Secondly,
I'm not very convinced by the theoretical derivations of this law by Marx
or by other writers I've read on the subject.
However, I believe that Marx was able to arrive at a correct theory of
value without a good theoretical derivation because he understood that it
was the best explanation of the observed facts of capitalism. As he said
in the letter to Kugelmann "even if there were no chapter on value at
all in my book, the analysis I give of the real relations would contain
the proof and demonstration of the real value relation."
However, this doesn't mean that there is no good theoretical explanation
of why the law of value operates. From my reading of Marx and Marxist
writers, I have gathered implicit support for the following derivation of
the law of value:
In order to compare different commodities, one needs a common standard.
This is implicitly (sometimes explicitly) conceded by those who say that
the standard is "abstract utility." However, the discussion of commodity
fetishism shows that "beneath the surface" commodities are social
relations between producers, and exchange relations are a surface
reflection of these underlying social relations between producers. Thus,
the thing commodities have in common which makes them exchangeable must be
found in the realm of production, ruling out utility (which is in the
realm of consumption). What commodities have in common which is part of
the realm of production, then, is that they can be reduced to simple
labor.
This is not meant to be a "proof" of the LoV, but merely suggestive of a
reason why it MIGHT operate (and whether or not it operates is to be
determined by empirical observation). What does everyone think?
Now, I am pretty convinced that labor determines the value of a commodity.
But, in what particular way does it determine it? The Marxian answer is
that its the socially necessary amount of labor to reproduce the
commodity. Now, this is what I am unsure of the reason for. I will readily
accept that the relevant labor is that which REproduces the commodity.
Thus, there is no single amount of labor you can automatically refer to
(which there would be if you were looking at the actual labor which did
produce the specific unit of the commodity) and you have to look at all
the labors which could potentially produce it in the future.
But why the *average* of these labors? Why not some randomly determined
point within the range of them?
In his excellent annotations, I think Hans Ehrbar presents a flawed
argument about this process. He dismissed an arithmetical mean as the
basis of average necessary labor, because mathematical multiplication and
division can't be applied to concretely different labors. Rather, by
"Average intensity and skill" he uses the intensity and skill which
predominates ("most labor powers are average"), same with the technical
conditions of production. But how could "most" labors be of the exact same
skill, intensity etc... Also, if all capitalist labor can be reduced to
simple labor (which I think David Harvey demonstrates), then couldn't you
find an arithmetical mean?
Now, as for why I think Marxian economic theory explains the facts better
other theories (mainly neoclassical):
In neoclassical economics, there ARE situations in which the capitalist
has an incentive to increase the intensity and length of labor AND it is
in the worker's interest to resist this. But, whether or not this
condition holds depends on the level of competition within the demand and
supply sides of the labor market (among other things). So, the conditions
under which this situation holds are somewhat limited "(not as likely to
apply in highly competitive markets) and even when it does apply, there
will be limits to how much the capitalist wants to push the laborer, and
limits to how much the laborer wants to resist. In Marxian economics, I
think that the conditions under which this holds are more broad, and there
is less of a limit to how much the capitalist wants to increase the
intensity of labor, and less of a limit to how much the laborer wants to
decrease it. In my reading of labor history and the history of class
struggle, it seems the Marxian contention is borne out better.
I also enjoyed books by Ben Fine and Howard Botwinick which argued from
different perspectives about how Marxian economics explains observed
patterns of labor market segmentation better than neoclassical.
Of course, I'm sure Gil will disagree with me on most of this....
