At 03:23 PM 8/21/2006, you wrote:
at http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/JD-NCMofExploitDraft.pdf , I've posted
a copy a complete draft of a mathematical paper in which I try to
square the circle, i.e., try to explain the Marxian theory of
exploitation in neoclassical terms, or rather, in as neoclassical
terms as is humanly possible. I hope that it supercedes the
exploitation-as-scarcity-rent theory of John Roemer.
all comments are welcome.
I've downloaded Jim's paper and am part of the way through it, but for the
moment, for the record:
Roemer doesn't have an "exploitation-as-scarcity-rent" theory per se,
although that's the main case he treats in his formal models (and arguably
the case that gives the strongest heuristic justification for the normative
sense of "exploitation"). Productive assets, or the wealth advanced to
finance them, must be scarce at the margin in order for surplus value (and
thus exploitation) to arise in equilibrium, but not necessarily "scarce" in
the sense that yields economic rents to capitalists. This point especially
holds for his cooperative game-theoretic generalization of the concept of
exploitation in Part III of his 1982 book General Theory of Exploitation
and Class. For example, it might be that existing capitalists are worse or
more risk-averse entrepreneurs than existing proletarians would be if they
could only get access to financial wealth (which they can't, say, due to
imperfect credit markets). Then under Roemer's definition, workers are
capitalistically exploited in this scenario because they would be better
off with an egalitarian share of alienable productive assets, even if
existing capitalists don't in fact earn scarcity *rents*.
In any case, I wonder if Jim would disagree that Roemer's scenario of
scarce, unequally distributed capital assets is at least *sufficient* for
the existence of capitalist exploitation.
Anticipatory comment: Marx's definition of "exploitation" is based on an
extensive measure of labor performed, i.e. labor hours, *given* a certain
degree of labor intensity. I see that in Jim's paper the measure of labor
performed is instead intensive, i.e. based on labor effort per hour. This
is an interesting approach, but it should be noted that variations along
the extensive and intensive margins have very different consequences in
labor-value terms. E.g., an increase in aggregate labor hours performed
always increases total commodity values produced while leaving individual
commodity values unchanged, other things (including in particular labor
intensity, constant capital, and the state of technology) constant. In
contrast, for given labor hours performed, technology, and constant
capital, a general increase in labor intensity *reduces* the values of
individual commodities, by reducing the labor hours socially necessary to
produce a given mass of commodities, while leaving *total* commodity value
unchanged. Consequently I wonder if Jim is posing a new definition of
exploitation, one advanced by neither Marx nor Roemer. If that's the case,
I don't see how his paper can possibly establish a relevant basis for
"superceding" Roemer's theory, whatever its other merits. But back to the
paper....
Gil
