Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Interesting, but its a straw man, as that's not what I said at all, nor does it reflect my attitude toward the legacy of Karl Marx. What I said was that the guy who said uncultivated land was valueless seemed to express an idealist outlook and yes it seems empirically obvious to me that there is overwhelming evidence that price fluctuations are in part a function of subjective factors; like what the consumer is willing to pay for this and that etc. Marxism, to the extent we need an "ism", should not be a religion with a fixed and ossified dogma, moreover those of us who have worked as activists in the progressive movement for decades-me since 1967 when I was 14-and who sacrificed much as full time cadres in socialist organizations for years (in my case the Socialist Workers Party) have earned the right (paid our dues, literally) to candidly and sometimes critically discuss Marx and his ideas, which was, and remains to some extent, our stock in trade, but to not worship him either, to not reify Marxism into an alien "thing" over human beings like some wretched Stalinoid religion. So yeah I think there is the danger of idealism if people are blindly started from dogma and ignoring empirical reality since obviously the truth of ideas must be constantly tested against reality. For what it's worth, here Wikipedia's quick take on this issue for people on the go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Leonardo Kosloff wrote: > > Nobody is trying to get personal about it, nor belittling. I'm only asking > for evidence, being an ass-hole about it, but you can't say you weren't > asking for > it when you flat out say that Marx's, the dead dog prophet, approach to > value and price seems "idealist" and that it is oblivious of the realization > problems in the economy (which ain't true,) and how price fluctuations are > regulated by subjective factors and market conditions...in this list called > MARX-mail. > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == [I apologize for the long, redacted, quotation that follows] I would respectfully disagree; I'm not sure the mission of this list is as is stated below, rather I think it is broader forum for those who have been involved in radical politics and the Marxist tradition, particularly those of us who have been activists and paid their dues over decades in the trenches of the class struggle to reconnect and discuss pertinent issues (which surely abstruse concepts of theory can be a part). Thus, I would concede that the work of academics and experts, including economists, is important and should not be belittled by churlish anti-intellectualism. We should not, however, become intellectual snobs and elitists either seeking to maintain the purity of our little club. Surely Marx was a great economic theorist, but what differentiated him from Adam Smith or whomever, was not just the different quality of his ideas, but that he was primarily a political activist on behalf of the working class. Thus I see a danger of certain of his ideas being "reified" by a real or aspiring intellectual elite as their province as high priests. Thus the slogan from the Cultural Revolution "Better Red than Expert" and Mao's theme in "Oppose Book Worship!" of the danger of theory becoming the self serving shibboleth of a privileged elite. Yes, Marx was an economist, but he was also a leader of the First International as well. Thus his epitaph, Philosophers have interpreted the world in different ways, the point is to change it. Anarchist, No-Bullshit Marxist, or whatever, the lesson from this tradition, the main precept, is one of class struggle and workers standing up for their own interests and becoming the ruling class of society that will organize the socialist transformation of the world (that the natural tendency in society is towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, Marx once said). We want no condescending saviours! Thank you. On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Ralph Johansen wrote: > > > Marxmail's purpose as I understand it is to explicate and develop what > Marx wrote and more importantly to relate this as well as possible to > what we've experienced in the past and present, bringing in events as > they either raise problems for and call into question, are illustrative > of the utility of Marxist perspective, or call for further development > of Marx's incomplete theorization of capital. That is not a task for > dilettantes, which I call myself unless I am familiarizing myself with > Marx's precepts and method; it is nevertheless a task for those who > aspire to understand, and it might if more consistently implemented on > this list result in a much-reduced quantity of exchange (though I > suspect not for long) and a much higher quality. Without that effort, we > don't get very far past the current headlines. > > . . . . . > > I'm learning that, If what I understand to be the purpose of the > Marxmail list is correct, I don't see how people have the temerity to > hold forth here unless they as a prerequisite have thoroughly understood > or are with due humility in the process of trying to read and understand > what Marx wrote, as well as finding the more trenchant objections to his > critique of capitalism. Everything short of that largely results in a > surfeit of blather, and it dilutes and can destroy a list like this. > That's so basic to keeping our thinking caps on straight, or else losing > the vitality of discussion. Case in point is what happened several years > ago to the old unmoderated Socialist Register list, and what takes place > on other lists similar to this, as they atrophy and disappear. I don't > think shifting this range of tasks to Levy's invitation-only list, > however well it works there or whatever the original intent, is > appropriate any longer. As long as the discussion is moderated so as to > avoid one-upping and pettifogging. > > A now-deceased CP friend taught Capital during the 30s Depression in > workers' groups and observed that once it was presented clearly to > experienced wage workers, whatever their formal education, they got it > immediately. > . . . . > > So getting to know and appreciate the dialectical method of Capital >is essential to understanding Marx on his own terms. Quite a lot of >people, including some Marxists, would disagree. The so-called >analytic Marxists - thinkers like G.A. Cohen, John Roemer and Robert >Brenner - dismiss dialectics. They actually like to call themselves >"no-bullshit Marxists". They prefer to convert Marx's argument into >a series of analytical propositions. Others convert his argument >into a causal model of the world. There is even a positivist way of >representing Marx that allows his theory
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Philip Dunn writes: > It is widely thought that things can have a price but no value. It is > not a simple issue. However, within the scope of value theory, I would > be extremely reluctant to admit it. It is, of course, a non-trivial > issue what the scope of value theory is. The fact that some things have a price and no value at all, and other things have prices depending on value in a somewhat indirect fashion is nothing new to Marx, and---as Marx sees it---it does not mean that value theory has only a limited scope of validity. Let me explain this in more detail: (1) With the development of commodity circulation---after more and more different commodities produced by human labor could be bought with money---things got swept into circulation which did not contain labor but which became purchaseable with money because money was so powerful to purchase everything else already. Marx's main example was that it became possible to bribe people with money. (2) If a commodity is in high demand and therefore has a higher value than would be justified by its labor content then Marx says that this excess value is an expression of the demand for the good. But this high demand brings forth higher supply, therefore in the long run the price will be adjusted to the labor content. (3) In a bubble economy prices rise above their value foundations and sometimes a crisis is necessary to bring prices back to their value fundamentals. (There is a famous passage by Lipietz about this.) For many other things, the link between value and price is from the beginning indirect. Perhaps the most famous example are of course the prices of production which are no longer proportional to value but which are ultimately reducible to value. Philip brings other examples: > To take one example, "for instance, uncultivated land may have a price, > though it has no value, since no human labor has been incorporated in > it." Nevertheless, the ownership of land---just as the ownership of means of production---is necessary for the extraction of surplus-value, and the price of land is determined by the role of land in securing surplus-value for its owner. I.e., there is a link to labor, but it is an indirect link. If you look at the whole of the sentence from Marx quoted by Philip, you see that this is exactly what Marx meant with this sentence: > On the other hand, the imaginary price-form may also conceal a real > value-relation or one derived from it, as for instance the price of > uncultivated land, which is without value because no human labor > is objectified in it. (MECW35 p.112; MEW23 p.117; Vintage/Penguin p.197) Philip concludes: > Here it is the assumption that all value is embodied labour value > that causes the problem. Marx did not see this as a problem. On the contrary, in the manuscript "Results of the Immediate Process of Production" he wrote a passage which is a little stronger than the final published version of *Capital*, namely there he tried to argue that *every* price must be reducible to value: > Every *price* must be reducible to a *value*, because price, in and > for itself, is nothing but the monetary expression of value. The > circumstance that the actual price of a commodity may stand above or > below the level corresponding to its value does not alter the fact > that prices are an expression of the values of the commodities, even > though the expression is in this case *quantitatively* too large or > too small---quantitatively incongruent. But here in the *price of > labor* the lack of congruence is *qualitative*. (MEGA II/4.1 p. 15, > or the appendix of the Vintage edition p. 1072/3) Philip brings additional examples: > Similarly, it is questionable whether the value of money and the > value of labour-power are best understood as embodied labour. The value of labor-power is not labor embodied in the worker, but labor embodied in the consumption goods the worker needs. I.e., it is one step removed---which has important implications for relative surplus-value. The value of money at Marx's time was automatically determined by the production cost of gold. Nowadays I think the value of money is determined by monetary policy. I.e., we no longer have a gold standard but a policy standard. I think policy makers are doing exactly what is necessary to preserve the role of the dollar as a measure and representation of value---as described in section 3 of chapter One of Capital. Here the link to labor is quite indirect, but I still think it's there. In Marx's view all social laws are tendential (not only the falling rate of profit)---they can be inhibited temporarily by other influences. Marx was not disturbed by it, and he did not try to hide it. He wrote: > That in their appea
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Great post, Ralph. - Original Message - From: "Ralph Johansen" Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Philip Dunn wrote "for instance, uncultivated land may have a price, though it has no value, since no human labor has been incorporated in it." Here it is the assumption that all value is embodied labour value that causes the problem. Similarly, it is questionable whether the value of money and the value of labour-power are best understood as embodied labour. --- Mehmet Catagay has responded to the foregoing as I was typing this, but anyhow why not put it something like this: uncultivated land in the desert, the middle of the ocean, air in space have no value, nor price, unless: as with uncultivated land, sea or space that has the potential to be husbanded in any way, be it pasturage, crop planting, subsurface mineral potential, location of industrial or residential property or what have you, earth's materials and surrounds derive value from their potential or present capacity to have commodity value realized from them by being developed by human labor. Otherwise, they have no value in the sense in which this term is used in Marx's analysis of capital. Think oxygen bars in central Tokyo. Marxmail's purpose as I understand it is to explicate and develop what Marx wrote and more importantly to relate this as well as possible to what we've experienced in the past and present, bringing in events as they either raise problems for and call into question, are illustrative of the utility of Marxist perspective, or call for further development of Marx's incomplete theorization of capital. That is not a task for dilettantes, which I call myself unless I am familiarizing myself with Marx's precepts and method; it is nevertheless a task for those who aspire to understand, and it might if more consistently implemented on this list result in a much-reduced quantity of exchange (though I suspect not for long) and a much higher quality. Without that effort, we don't get very far past the current headlines. In that spirit I have over the years read Marx's Capital volume 1 several times, most recently with the help of David Harvey's excellent online 13-session course. I have also just received his newly-published "A Companion to Marx's Capital", I'm reading volume 2 for the first time (I am an exasperatingly slow reader, at least until I begin to get it, although I can race through fiction), and I'm about 190 pages into Harvey's newly published, updated edition of "The Limits to Capital". It would be helpful to me to have an online course on volumes 2 and 3 of Capital. I asked Goldner if he could go online with his present course in NYC on volume 2, and he replied that he and his cohort teacher are not so sophisticated. I'm learning that, If what I understand to be the purpose of the Marxmail list is correct, I don't see how people have the temerity to hold forth here unless they as a prerequisite have thoroughly understood or are with due humility in the process of trying to read and understand what Marx wrote, as well as finding the more trenchant objections to his critique of capitalism. Everything short of that largely results in a surfeit of blather, and it dilutes and can destroy a list like this. That's so basic to keeping our thinking caps on straight, or else losing the vitality of discussion. Case in point is what happened several years ago to the old unmoderated Socialist Register list, and what takes place on other lists similar to this, as they atrophy and disappear. I don't think shifting this range of tasks to Levy's invitation-only list, however well it works there or whatever the original intent, is appropriate any longer. As long as the discussion is moderated so as to avoid one-upping and pettifogging. A now-deceased CP friend taught Capital during the 30s Depression in workers' groups and observed that once it was presented clearly to experienced wage workers, whatever their formal education, they got it immediately. Even some who may have thoroughly absorbed Marxian theory and with whom I agree on most issues, I question. Leo Panitch, for example, is a well-respected, challenging and very productive thinker and doer on the left, who professes to be a Marxist. I am searching through his writings online and in the Socialist Register but do not yet see how Panitch in a recent inerview can say, "I have never been particularly attracted to value theory, in the sense that the only surplus is produced by workers, in a narrow industrial sense" and "I have never put much stock in the falling rate of profit as an explanation for capitalist crises" (http://platypus1917.org/2010/03/02/is-marx-back-an-interview-with-leo-panitch/ at 9:20 to 9:40 Part 1). Of course, he qualifies his questi
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == brings to mind the old story related by Eskimos about how the fine English gentlemen of the doomed 1840s John Franklin expedition to the Canadian arctic tried to buy food from them with silver eating utensils. Sadly they had insufficient extra food to aid these aliens with precious metals as money being unfamiliar and odd to them. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Philip Dunn wrote: To take one example, "for instance, uncultivated land may have a price, though it has no value, since no human labor has been incorporated in it." ... According to this logic, the exchange value of the land in the middle of the desert and the one just a couple of miles away from Las Vegas with the same size must be equal since they're both uncultivated and "supposedly" no human labor has been incorporated with it. In the Appendix to the 1st German edition of Capital Marx writes: "It is a definite social relation of the producers in which they equate (gleichsetzen) their different types of labour as human labour. It is not less a definite social relation of producers, in which they measure the magnitude of their labours by the duration of expenditure of human labour-power. But within our practical interrelations these social characters of their own labours appear to them as social properties pertaining to them by nature, as objective determinations (gegenständliche Bestimmungen) of the products of labour themselves, the equality of human labours as a value-property of the products of labour, the measure of the labour by the socially necessary labour-time as the magnitude of value of the products of labour, and finally the social relations of the producers through their labours appear as a value-relation or social relation of these things, the products of labour. Precisely because of this the products of labour appear to them as commodities, sensible-supersensible (sinnlich übersinnliche) or social things. Thus the impression on the optic nerve brought about by the light (Lichteindruck auf den Sehnerv) from something is represented, not as a subjective stimulation of the optic nerve itself, but as the objective form of a thing outside the eye. But in the case of seeing, light from a thing, from the external object, is in fact thrown upon another thing, the eye. It is a physical relation between physical things. As opposed to that the commodity-form and the value-relation of products of labour have absolutely nothing to do with their physical nature and the relations between things which springs from this. It is only the definite social relation of people (der Menschen) itself which here takes on for them the phantasmagoric form of a relation of things. Hence in order to find an analogy for this we must take flight into the cloudy region of the religious world. Here the products of the human head appear as independent figures (Gestalten) endowed with a life of their own and standing in a relation to one another and to people. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of the human hand. This I call the fetishism which clings to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities and which is therefore inseparable from commodity-production. Now this fetish-character emerges more strikingly in the equivalent-form than in the relative value-form. The relative value-form of a commodity is mediated, namely by its relation to another commodity. Through this value-form the value of the commodity is expressed as something completely distinct from its own sensible existence. At the same time it is inherent in this that existence as value (Wertsein) is a relation which is alien to the thing itself and hence that its value-relation to another thing can only be the form of appearance of a social relation hidden behind it. Conversely with the equivalent-form. It consists precisely in the fact that the bodily or natural form of a commodity counts immediately as the social form, as the value-form for another commodity. Therefore, within our practical interrelations, to possess the equivalent-form appears as the social natural property (gesellschaftliche Natureigenschaft) of a thing, as a property pertaining to it by nature, so that hence it appears to be immediately exchangeable with other things just as it exists for the senses (so wie es sinnlich da ist). But because within the value-expression of commodity A the equivalent-form pertains by nature to the commodity B it seems also to belong to the latter by nature outside of this relation. Hence, for example, the riddle (das Rätselhafte) of gold, that seems to possess, by nature, apart from its other natural properties, its colour, its specific weight, its non-oxydisability in air, etc., also the equivalent-form, or the social quality of being immediately exchangeable with all other commodities. " mç Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I'm sorry I thought you were the person who had posted that, which was very enlightening. In any event, my comments weren't intended as a personal attack on you or anyone for that matter, but were general of an observation. Yes, while I don't claim to be an expert on economics, I think my observation that I don't see too many marxists addressing these contemporary issues, to say nothing of in a way that demystifies it for the average worker, was a fair one. On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:37 PM, S. Artesian wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > What link are you referring to-- I don't recall posting such a link. > > I think you're a little confused. In your earlier post you seemed to be > criticizing Marxists for being "weak" on economics and what was actually > happening in capitalism today. > > In this later post you're saying, that you're theone who doesn't > understand, > and anyway, it's not as important as politics. Do I have that right? > > I never claimed globalism or globalization was something new-- and I don't > think too many Marxists claim that it's new. > - Original Message - > From: "Tom Cod" > > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 17:25 +, Leonardo Kosloff wrote: "Yes, Philip, but here Marx is talking about imaginary prices (precisely, price expressions which are not determined by value) in particular conjunctures. And I would say these fictions decrease in number the more capitalism expands. The way you phrased your comment, or maybe, more like the way I read it, was that things in general can have a price which is not determined by their value. And what I want to say is that the price-form comes after and is determined by the value-form, which is what Marx develops at the beginning. The question is: how does the representation of abstract labor by the price-form come into being without value? It doesn’t." It is widely thought that things can have a price but no value. It is not a simple issue. However, within the scope of value theory, I would be extremely reluctant to admit it. It is, of course, a non-trivial issue what the scope of value theory is. To take one example, "for instance, uncultivated land may have a price, though it has no value, since no human labor has been incorporated in it." Here it is the assumption that all value is embodied labour value that causes the problem. Similarly, it is questionable whether the value of money and the value of labour-power are best understood as embodied labour. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == What link are you referring to-- I don't recall posting such a link. I think you're a little confused. In your earlier post you seemed to be criticizing Marxists for being "weak" on economics and what was actually happening in capitalism today. In this later post you're saying, that you're theone who doesn't understand, and anyway, it's not as important as politics. Do I have that right? I never claimed globalism or globalization was something new-- and I don't think too many Marxists claim that it's new. - Original Message - From: "Tom Cod" Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == sorry about the non-snip Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Yeah well, like a lot of people I don't have time to track down a lot of obscure stuff, like many folks I'm like the deer in the headlights (huh, what "Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust"? what . . . ?); but, hey, how about that link you posted to that comic book explication of the current situation; had more "use value" to me than dense tomes commenting on Capital, to say nothing of its entertainment and propaganda value as well, but surely someone needs to hack through the "small print" of it for sure, but that's not the sine quo non of politics, even if intellectuals are in love with it. So, maybe you can post that link again. The thing about Lenin is that his ideas, his self described popularizations, were easy to grasp, even for me as 16 year old high school student reading Imperialism, "dictatorship of finance capital", 40 years ago with its chart showing how Morgan, Rockefeller et al dominated the US economy. Thus a lot of this talk about "globalism" as something new is innacurate. On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 2:20 PM, S. Artesian wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > Well, I take exception to that characterization of "Marxists," since > Marxists understand plenty about the actual predicament of capital, > particularly the issues of MBS, CDOs, CLOs, ABS, SIVs, Repo 105s, junk, > super-junk, unbelievable-junk, you're crazy if you think I'm going for that > junk etcetc. > > You haven't been reading the right Marxists. > - Original Message - > From: "Tom Cod" > To: "David Schanoes" > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of > value > > > > == > > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > > == > > > > > > My lay person take on it is that the inherent value of a product > certainly > > lies in the labor it took to create it, its moral value so to speak, but > > to > > say that that and prices, which obviously reflect its exchange value > since > > that's what someone is willing to pay for it and which can fluctuate > > wildly > > are close or nearly close seems idealist. The "pet rock" of the 70s may > > have had little in terms of labor invested in it, collecting the items > and > > then packaging them, but the price that someone paid for it was a > function > > of market conditions, subjective and otherwise. This essentially goes > > towards the main issue which is Sales, a word I think I hardly ever see > > mentioned by Marx's ostensible epigones. Without consummated sales no > > value > > is realized, oranges dumped in groves while people starve as during the > > depression. Thus, my impression of "marxists" on economic theory is that > > they are very weak, seeking to talmudically parse and justify an old > > prophet > > and his sacred texts without much interest in empirically rooting > > themselves > > in current conditions. Thus we have little from them concretely > analyzing > > and demystifying the current burning economic issues related to > mortgages, > > CDOs etc etc., although their heart is in the right place. Then again > > politics is not primarily an academic exercise either. > > > > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Anthony Boynton > > wrote: > > > >> == > >> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > >> == > >> > >> > >> I have not followed this thread fully, but here are my three cents worth > >> in > >> answer to this question. > >> > >> I don't think there are any 'flaws' in Marx's value theory. However, it > >> has > >> never been fully developed. Historically the biggest glitch has been the > >> "transformation problem" which is still controversial. Other undeveloped > >> areas of v
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Well, I take exception to that characterization of "Marxists," since Marxists understand plenty about the actual predicament of capital, particularly the issues of MBS, CDOs, CLOs, ABS, SIVs, Repo 105s, junk, super-junk, unbelievable-junk, you're crazy if you think I'm going for that junk etcetc. You haven't been reading the right Marxists. - Original Message - From: "Tom Cod" To: "David Schanoes" Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > My lay person take on it is that the inherent value of a product certainly > lies in the labor it took to create it, its moral value so to speak, but > to > say that that and prices, which obviously reflect its exchange value since > that's what someone is willing to pay for it and which can fluctuate > wildly > are close or nearly close seems idealist. The "pet rock" of the 70s may > have had little in terms of labor invested in it, collecting the items and > then packaging them, but the price that someone paid for it was a function > of market conditions, subjective and otherwise. This essentially goes > towards the main issue which is Sales, a word I think I hardly ever see > mentioned by Marx's ostensible epigones. Without consummated sales no > value > is realized, oranges dumped in groves while people starve as during the > depression. Thus, my impression of "marxists" on economic theory is that > they are very weak, seeking to talmudically parse and justify an old > prophet > and his sacred texts without much interest in empirically rooting > themselves > in current conditions. Thus we have little from them concretely analyzing > and demystifying the current burning economic issues related to mortgages, > CDOs etc etc., although their heart is in the right place. Then again > politics is not primarily an academic exercise either. > > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Anthony Boynton > wrote: > >> == >> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. >> == >> >> >> I have not followed this thread fully, but here are my three cents worth >> in >> answer to this question. >> >> I don't think there are any 'flaws' in Marx's value theory. However, it >> has >> never been fully developed. Historically the biggest glitch has been the >> "transformation problem" which is still controversial. Other undeveloped >> areas of value theory exist however. > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Yeah, but, bourgois contract law says those "intangibles" do have value within the meaning of the need for "consideration" or value for any contract to be valid. "imaginary price"? The uncultivated land comment is classic and strikes at the heart of something, because Marx or Shmarx, everyone knows land has big value (wasn't there some guy named Henry George?), present economic use value for grazing of livestock and imminent future value for construction and agriculture. With all due respect, like Creation Science, seems like another example of the ridiculous outcomes of idealist thinking that starts backwards from holy ideology to reorganize empirical facts to be congruent with it, instead of proceeding the other way around from concrete reality via "scientific method" in an open ended inquiry etc. I mean that's not "imaginary" money people are paying the "imaginary price" for land that has "no value" which might as well be "free"? C'mon. > Good question, but it should be directed at the fellow who wrote: > "Things which in and by themselves are not commodities, such as > conscience, honor, etc., can be put up for sale by their owners, and can > thus, through their price, acquire the commodity form. Hence a thing can > have a price without having value. In that case, the price expression is > imaginary, like certain magnitudes used in mathematical calculations. On > the other hand, the imaginary price form may sometimes conceal a direct > or indirect value relation; for instance, uncultivated land may have a > price, though it has no value, since no human labor has been > incorporated in it." > > > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == For comrades interested in two classic texts that can be read online: Bohm-Bawerk's "Karl Marx and the Close of His System" (Against Marx's value theory): http://hussonet.free.fr/bohm.pdf Hilferding's rebuttal to Bohm-Bawerk: http://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/index.htm Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 13:32 +, Leonardo Kosloff wrote: > P. Dunn wrote: "And money does not equalise abstract labor?" > > If by equalise you mean that money functions as a representative of > the commensurability of the abstract human labor already materialized > before two commodities are exchanged, then yes, money equalises > (expresses the equality of), quantitavely, the abstract labor in those > commodities. But this is not against what Hans says (so it doesn't > look like it's what you're saying), which, as I take it, means that > commodities are not commodities because they are equalized by money, > money is the outward mode of expression of their commensurability > which results from the action that objectifies the value-form of the > commodity, which is the labor performed privately and independently. > Commodities are commodities before they are exchanged (before their > intrinsic potentiality is realized.) > > By the same token, money does not equalize abstract labor in the sense > that labor becomes abstract because of the act of exchange. Abstract > labor is an aspect of the two-fold character of general social labor > and doesn't come into existence by the action of money, the action is > that of the producer of commodities. See more below. > If the quanta of "abstract human labor already materialized before two commodities are exchanged" are unequal, how can money equalised them? > > P. Dunn wrote: "It seems that "invisible values" can be calculated but > not measured in any operational sense since the value of the sum of > money for which the commodity is sold is not equal to its intrinsic > value." > > If values can be "calculated but not measured" (whatever that means,) > then how do you know that "the value of the sum of money for which the > commodity is sold is not equal to its intrinsic value." By the way, > values are "invisible" because they have no materiality, same could be > said of prices. > With one theory you could calculate in advance of sale that the abstract labour contained in a commodity was 4.2 hours, say, but be unable to measure it. With a different theory you could not calculate the abstract labour contained in the commodity in advance but could measure it as 7.6 hours, say, or even 4.2 hours (not wishing to be prejudicial). > P. Dunn wrote: "You cannot even tell if there is any value hidden away > in there since things can have a price without having a value." > > Really...how is that, how can things have a price without having a > value? > Good question, but it should be directed at the fellow who wrote: "Things which in and by themselves are not commodities, such as conscience, honor, etc., can be put up for sale by their owners, and can thus, through their price, acquire the commodity form. Hence a thing can have a price without having value. In that case, the price expression is imaginary, like certain magnitudes used in mathematical calculations. On the other hand, the imaginary price form may sometimes conceal a direct or indirect value relation; for instance, uncultivated land may have a price, though it has no value, since no human labor has been incorporated in it." Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == My lay person take on it is that the inherent value of a product certainly lies in the labor it took to create it, its moral value so to speak, but to say that that and prices, which obviously reflect its exchange value since that's what someone is willing to pay for it and which can fluctuate wildly are close or nearly close seems idealist. The "pet rock" of the 70s may have had little in terms of labor invested in it, collecting the items and then packaging them, but the price that someone paid for it was a function of market conditions, subjective and otherwise. This essentially goes towards the main issue which is Sales, a word I think I hardly ever see mentioned by Marx's ostensible epigones. Without consummated sales no value is realized, oranges dumped in groves while people starve as during the depression. Thus, my impression of "marxists" on economic theory is that they are very weak, seeking to talmudically parse and justify an old prophet and his sacred texts without much interest in empirically rooting themselves in current conditions. Thus we have little from them concretely analyzing and demystifying the current burning economic issues related to mortgages, CDOs etc etc., although their heart is in the right place. Then again politics is not primarily an academic exercise either. On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Anthony Boynton wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > I have not followed this thread fully, but here are my three cents worth in > answer to this question. > > I don't think there are any 'flaws' in Marx's value theory. However, it has > never been fully developed. Historically the biggest glitch has been the > "transformation problem" which is still controversial. Other undeveloped > areas of value theory exist however. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Very, very interesting post from Anthony. Just a word in response to the question about non-capitalist commodity production. Marx gives us a clue, an idea of how to approach this in volume 2: "No matter whether a commodity is the product of slavery, of peasants [Chinese, Indian ryots], of communes [Dutch East Indies], or of state enterprise [such as existed in the former epochs of Russian history on the basis of serfdom], or of half-savage hunting tribes, etc., commodities and money of such modes of production, when coming in contact with commodities and money representing industrial capital, enter as much into its rotation as into that of surplus-values embodied in the commodity-capital, provided the surplus-value is spent as revenue. They enter into both of the cycles of circulation of commodity-capital. The character of the process of production from which they emanate is immaterial. They perform the function of commodities on the market, and enter into the cycles of industrial capital as well as into those of the surplus-value carried by it. It is the universal character of the commodities, the world character of the market, which distinguishes the process of rotation of the industrial capital."-- Kerr Edition Vol 2. p. 125 Much work needs to be done, certainly, but I think this analysis of the "gravitational pull," this plasticity of capitalism, points to a direction. - Original Message - From: "Anthony Boynton" Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 17:07 -0600, ehrbar wrote: > As I understand Marx, here is what money does NOT do: > > (a) Money does not equalize commodities. Commodities are not equal because > they can be exchanged for money, but commodities are equal because they > contain abstract human labor, and their exchangeability for money is an > outward expression of this inner equality. > > Here is what money DOES do: > > (1) As already said in (a), money is the medium which allows > commodities to express on the surface (and thus make operational) the > invisible values inside them. This is the first function of money, > "measure of value." And money does not equalise abstract labor? It seems that "invisible values" can be calculated but not measured in any operational sense since the value of the sum of money for which the commodity is sold is not equal to its intrinsic value. You cannot even tell if there is any value hidden away in there since things can have a price without having a value. Is there any empirical way of telling whether there is any invisible value in a commodity? It doesn't seem to affect anything observable in any way whatsoever. There has been discussion about the nature of abstract labor on the list earlier: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w11/msg00238.htm Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == If anyone is interested in learning about Marx, a good place to start is with Han's Ehrbar's annotated edition, which is on line. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:05 -0400, S. Artesian wrote: > > That's not a flaw in the Marx's labor theory of value, it's the mechanism by > which socially necessary time for reproduction is conveyed and manifested in > the realization of value, apportioning the socially availaable proft, and > establishing the general rate of profit. > > "Equivalence" as a quality of exchange, as a mediation of exchange is not > identical to, and does not require "equality." > Phililp Dunn responded: > OK, money as a universal equivalent (in a sense involving equality) > plays no part in Marx's labor theory of value. Money is an equivalent > only in the sense that it mediates exchange. It plays a purely > qualitative role and does not function as a quantitative measure of > value. It's just a veil, really. My response (this is the kind of thing I write for my Capital class): As I understand Marx, here is what money does NOT do: (a) Money does not equalize commodities. Commodities are not equal because they can be exchanged for money, but commodities are equal because they contain abstract human labor, and their exchangeability for money is an outward expression of this inner equality. (b) Money does not move commodities around. As Marx sees the circulation process, commodities are active. They must change hands so that their producers can be compensated for the labor put in them. The movement of money is the passive reflection of this active movement of the commodities. Here is what money DOES do: (1) As already said in (a), money is the medium which allows commodities to express on the surface (and thus make operational) the invisible values inside them. This is the first function of money, "measure of value." This is an important role which mainstream economics entirely misses because they don't have a concept of value. (2) In chapter 2 of *Capital* Marx says that every commodity owner carrying his commodity to market has two goals: they have to realize the value of their commodity (i.e., have to get a fair equivalent of what they have produced) and they have to select the use-value which they like best. These two goals are contradictory; if one tries to achieve them in one transaction, a barter of one good for another, one will get suboptimal results. Note that the double coincidence of wants is only the use-value half of this dilemma; again, since mainstream economics does not theorize value it cannot see the other half. Now the existence of money allows the commodity traders to split their transaction in two: first a sale, specializing on realizing the value (you sell to the highest bidder regardless of what use-value that commodity owner is producing), and then the purchase specializing on the value side of it. This is the role of money as means of circulation. (3) Those roles of money are necessary for and auxiliary to the circulation process. But in order to be able to help circulation, money has acquired capabilities which are useful beyond circulation: it has become the one commodity which can buy all other commodities, the independent incarnation of abstract wealth, command over the labor of others which you can carry around in your pocket. This is money as money. Here money is no longer a servant but a king. This is something new, an example of emergence. In other words, in Marx's theory money is *not* a veil but it becomes a causal agent. Hans. Hans G. Ehrbar http://www.econ.utah.edu/~ehrbar ehr...@economics.utah.edu Economics Department, University of Utah (801) 908 6937 260 Central Campus Drive Rm 343 (801) 581 7481 (econ office) Salt Lake CityUT 84112-9155 (801) 585 5649 (FAX) Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:52 +0100, Philip Dunn wrote: > Value theory has no flaws. > Whoops. There is at least one flaw. Money is said to be a universal equivalent. This means that there is equal exchange. Sell a commodity for a certain sum of money and then buy another with that sum of money. The value of the sold commodity must equal the value of the bought commodity. These values both equal the value of the sum of money. However, Marx allows a "quantitative incongruity between price and magnitude of value". This means that the values of the commodities are not equal to the value of the sum of money and are, in general, unequal. There is no equal exchange and money is not a universal equivalent. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of value?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > I don't know whether this is the correct list to ask this question > Looks like it's not the correct list. BTW, it is cooler to say value theory rather then LTV. Value theory has no flaws. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
