Re: labor theory of value
Shane says: Use-value is measured as a quantity of *dated* socially necessary labor time. The change in labor productivity from year x to year y is measured as quantity of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year y divided by the quantity of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year x. Clear? COMMENT: How can use value be measured by "dated" socially necessary labor time? Where I live the air is relatively clean and no labor time is required to keep it in a state useful to keep me and my Ukranian neighbors alive etc. without polluting our lungs etc. No doubt in other places it requires considerable socially necessary labor time in terms of producing emission control devices etc. to keep the air there at the same relative level of use value. Yet such air is no more useful than the air I breathe in the boondocks. Cheers, Ken Hanly P.S. I no longer live in the metropolis of Brandon but in Oakburn MB. where the Americans come to hunt snow geese and fish.
Re: global inequality data
Louis N Proyect wrote: The World Bank has excellent figures. (www.worldbank.org) On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Thad Williamson wrote: Dear Pen-L'rs, Does anyone know of an easy reference source for figures on the GLOBAL distribution of income and wealth, and historical trends in regard to each? Both internet and paper references appreciated. thanks, Thad Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad Penn World Tables (PWT 5.6) Look for it at NBER Home Page Regards
Re: labor theory of value
At 11:57 AM 10/21/97 -0400, Jim Devine wrote, inter alia: "But as heavy industry develops the creation of real wealth depends less on labor time and on the quantity of labor utilized than on the power of mechanized agents which are set into motion during the labor time. The powerful effectiveness of these agents, in its turn, bears no relation to the immediate labor time that their labor cost. It depends rather on the general state of science and on techonological progress, or the aplication of this science to production." Now, Marx will insist that science and technology are the creations of human beings. However the emphasis is no longer on "labour" or the "worker"; rather, it is on the "understanding of nature", "the general powers of the human mind", "intellect", "the application of mechanical and chemical laws" - the worker ceasing to be "an essential part of the process of production". Indeed, with automation the "human factor" is limited to overseeing - "supervising" - the production process. In that context, I'd like to ask (this is a genuine question, not a sneaky critique) what is the meaning of the term "labor?" I see at least three distinct meanings: (i) the productive capacity of people in a certain social class or those people collectively (meaning "blue collar" workers and their work); (ii) any human effort socially required to produce any commodity (to my understanging, that is close to the notion of "use value of labor"); and (iii) labor power (i.e. the quantified exchange value of labor as defined in item ii above). This distinction is directly relevant for the proposition between work and its products, tangible or abstract, aka commodity. Assuming definition (i) the proposition that all commodity, individually or collectively (aka wealth, knowledge, etc.) is a product of labor (=working class) might be sexy (for it defines wealth owners as parasites), but rather difficult to show empirically. At the very best, the emprically demonstrable version of this proposition is that labor is a necessary condition of accummulated commodity (wealth or knowledge). Assuming definition (ii), the above proposition implies that accumulated commodity (wealth, knowledge) is a product of a distinct socially defined class of people, althought it remains an open question whether and under what conditions the accumulated total is equivalent to or greater than the sum total of the efforts of the individuals in question. This interpretation extends the term labor beyond the meaning implied in (i), and includes services of physicians, artists, writers, scientists, clerical workers, managers etc. -- in a work anyone whose work produces tangible or intellectual product that is then appropriated by the owner of the means of production (corporation, university, hospital, playhouse etc.) and sold or accummulated as commodity. Assuming definition (iii) the proposition implies finding a mathematical formula expressing the relationship between two quantities, a measure of the total effort exerted, and a measure of the total product of that effort. My next question is which (if any) of these three definitions are most useful to understand capitalist relations of production? I am less interested in the exegesis of the holy scriptures (i.e. what Marx Co. did or did not say), than in the ability to explain empirical reality i.e. asking the right questions, formulating the right empirical hypotheses, and pointing to the right direction where the answers can be found. Regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233
Re: The Lockean Proviso
Gil writes:
Some questions and comments on Ken's discussion of the "Lockean proviso"
Mixing one's labor with land gave "natural" ownership claims to land
according to Locke. However, there is as Nozick (the erstwhile libertarian)
Erstwhile? What has he become?
COMMENT: He has become a type of communitarian. He now thinks that group values
are important and for individual fulfilment these values are essential.
In his recent work he writes of the importance of family and his Jewish
cultural heritage and group values.
(One chapter in his THE EXAMINED LIFE discusses this)
notes an explicit proviso to the effect that there be enough and as good left
over for others. Even Nozick recognizes the problems inherent in this idea.
Locke notes this proviso in his 2nd treatise. (it wasn't clear from Ken's
wording whether he meant to suggest that the proviso originates with
Nozick). In its original formulation it's pretty damaging to any attempt to
establish a "natural" basis for ownership of things like land: in a world
where space and time matter, there can virtually never be "enough and as
good left over for others."
Which is one reason why Nozick suggests relaxing the proviso to requiring
only that others are rendered *no worse off* by someone's appropriation of
land. Gerald Cohen attacks this formulation, but that's another issue.
" What are the boundaries of what labor is mixed with? If a private
astronaut clears a place on Mars, has he mixed his labor with
(so that he comes to
own) the whole planet, the whole unihabited universe, or just a particular
plot? Which plot does an act bring under ownership?" (ANARCHY, STATE, UTOPIA)
Nozick himself notes that if someone dug a well in an area and
that was the only place that there was water in the area that the Lockean
proviso would imply that the well-digger would not have any exclusive
"natural" ownership claims since it would violate the proviso. It seems then on
this labor theory that one would not necessarily have a claim to the total
value produced by one's labor nor natural ownership claims as a result of
mixing ones labor with an unowned object.
I think this point raises important questions. Suggestion: the scenario
above involves a situation of "absolute" as opposed to simply "economic"
scarcity ("...that was the only place that there was water in the area..."),
whereas Marx's theory of value arguably pertains to a setting without
absolute scarcity--and also, for that matter, without increasing returns to
scale or systemic production externalities. There are some hints of this
reading in Capital, V. I, the key one being Marx's insistence that
use-value cannot inform the determination of exchange-value. Unless Marx
meant this *simply as a tautology*--i.e. he *defined* exchange-value as
something that cannot be influenced quantitatively by use-value-- (and more
on that in a second), this is clearly not so for absolutely scarce goods.
Gil also writes:
Now, as to the definition of exchange-value, Ken writes
P.S. I thought that Marx's theory of value was about exchange value within
capitalism. It presupposes that there are utility values or use values as well
as exchange value. It is
only a theory about what determines exchange value (not price)
within a certain economic system.
Hmm. What can the "exchange-value" of a good (as opposed, for example, the
good's "value") refer to, if not to price *in some sense*?
COMMENT: What I wrote here was incorrect or at least misleading. I simply
wanted to distinguish exchange value from price. Price is determined in general
by exchange value and hence the socially necessary labor but is not identical
with such.
"Market-prices and market values will continue to differ. The value of
a commodity is determined by the labour-time in it in only a "vague and
meaningless form"
Nevertheless the law of value dominates market prices." and
"Whatever may be the way in which the prices of the various commodities
are first fixed or mutually regulated, the law of value always dominates their
movements."
(From Freedman MARX ON ECONOMICS p. 140 quoting from DAS KAPITAL iii I
believe)
Doesn't this make it clear that Marx distinguishes exchange value
from price?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
It is not a
general philosophical theory of value, nor does it pretend to be. As for
machines contributing to value, isn't it part of the Marxist view that machines
are themselves the result of surplus value produced by labor i.e. dead as
compared to living labor?
I guess one possible thrust of my questions is that, even with the
qualifications noted by Ken, a labor-based theory of value in Marxian guise
might run into many of the same difficulties as would its Lockean
alternative--though the significance of the difficulties might be
*interpreted* very differently. Just a hunch.
Gil Skillman
Re: labor theory of value
Date sent: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shane Mage) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: "labor theory of value" James and Ricardo seem to share the same vulgar-economics confusion: that *value* is the same thing as *wealth*. Marx leaves no room for this confusion. Value *is* the mass of socially necessary labor time embodied in the social product of a given period. Wealth *is* the mass of use-value available to society at any given point in time for consumption, new investment, and maintenance of productive capacity. Value is measured as a quantity of labor time exerted in the period being studied. Use-value is measured as a quantity of *dated* socially necessary labor time. The change in labor productivity from year x to year y is measured as quantity of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year y divided by the quantity of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year x. Clear? Shane If Marx leaves no such confusion, how do you explain the very first sentence of the passage I quoted below where Marx links directly the creation of "real wealth" with "labor time"? Today science and technology play a greater role in the creation of value than productive labor. In the GRUNDRISSE Marx recognizes this: "But as heavy industry develops the creation of real wealth depends less on labor time and on the quantity of labor utilized than on the power of mechanized agents which are set into motion during the labor time. The powerful effectiveness of these agents, in its turn, bears no relation to the immediate labor time that their labor cost. IT DEPENDS RATHER ON THE GENERAL STATE OF SCIENCE AND ON TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS, OR THE APPLICATION OF THIS SCIENCE TO PRODUCTION." (Italics added). With all due respect to old Chuck, wait a sec! doesn't the development of science and technology, not to mention its application to production involve _labor_? Aren't scientists and engineers workers, despite their relatively exalted status? I don't see how disembodied science can do _anything_. But Marx did not integrate these ideas into his formulation of the labor theory of value in Capital...It is beyond me why marxists continue to insist on the labor theory of value when it is obvious that labor, as Marx says in the Grundrisse, is no longer the principal source of wealth. I don't remember the context of this quote, but isn't he talking about the future? could it not be that this labor-free existence is _still_ in the future, when we all have Buckminster Fuller machines where we simply push a button and what we want comes out? A lot of Marx's predictions haven't come out exactly as described. Is it not possible that he's wrong on this one? What is the logic and evidence behind his argument? That's enough for today. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
Re: global inequality data
The World Bank has excellent figures. (www.worldbank.org) On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Thad Williamson wrote: Dear Pen-L'rs, Does anyone know of an easy reference source for figures on the GLOBAL distribution of income and wealth, and historical trends in regard to each? Both internet and paper references appreciated. thanks, Thad Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad
NYC Conference on Economic Violence, Oct.25
The Human Rights and Labor Solidarity Caucus at Union Theological Seminary presents: Reign of the Beast: Imperialism and Economic Violence in the Age of Global Capitalism. A one-day conference free and open to the public. Saturday October 25, noon-7 p.m., Union Theological Seminary, 3041 Broadway (Broadway and 122nd), New York City. (Come by 1/9 train, exit at 125th st. [southbound] or 116th st. [north bound]) --Join together for thistorical and socio-political anaylsis of the the methods and effets of capitalist expansion and neo-liberal developmentalism in the Caribbean, Central South America, and Africa --Special emphasis on the legacies of colonialism, the role of US foriegn policy, woman's subjugation in the new international division of labor, the role of debt, and the impact of militarism --Analysis of activism and strategies for US Citizens --Ecumencial worship and concluding supper Featured speakers include: Kim Ives, Haiti Progress Rita d'Escoto Clark, Nicaragua-US Friendship Office Mario Marillo, Pacifica-WBAI 99.5 FM (host, "Our Americas") Njoki Njehu, 50 Years is Enough Elmobe Brath, Pacifica-WBAI 99.5 FM (co-host, "Afrikaleidoscope") John Mateyko, Witness for Peace Ray LaForest, Disney/Haiti Justice Campaign Yannick Etienne, Batay Ouvriye (Worker's Struggle) Silvia Federici, Hofstra University with a scheduled cameo appearance by Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer *Please forward this note to friends and activists in the New York area* Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad
Growing Gap Between The Rich And Everybody Else (Canada)
The CBS admitted on Thursday that "Despite the rosy picture of Canada's economy by Paul martin and other financial leaders, there's a disturbing drop in most Canadians' stadard of living. This has led to a growing gap between the rich and the rest of Canada." In 1989, the "average income" of Canadians was measured by Statistics Canada to be $17,627. By 1996, it had dropped to $16,726. Taking taxes into account, the disposable income in 1989 was $13,845 and $12,633 in 1996, a decline of 9 per cent. CBC reports that "Statistics also show that while most Canadians got little or no wage increases, the average Canadian executive got a 14 per cent raise." Since the "average" of anything is arrived at by taking the total and dividing it by the number of parts, it stands to reason that if the incomes of "average Canadian executives" referred to by the CBC were not figured into the total, the "average income" of Canadians would drop significantly. TML DAILY, 10/97 Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: labor theory of value
Date sent: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:08:15 -0700 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:"labor theory of value" I think we can leave aside the biblical question as to whether Marx used the term "labor theory of value". That's the term we now commonly employ; in fact, those who raised this very objection used it in those very missives. As far as the claim that Marx is talking about a `future society', I say he is talking about a future CAPITALIST society. So let me I respond to the only substantive objection made against my initial remark, namely, that `scientists are workers', or `techonology is itself just the product of labor'. Actually this objection is the very same one Marx raises against the "absurdity of Lauderdale's statement that fixed capital is independent of working time, and a self-contained source of value. It is such a source only in so far as it is itself objectified labour time, and establishes surplus labour time" (Grundrisse, ed. McLellan, p.138, see also p. 137). Marx raises this objection just as he is writing that the production process and productivity are increasingly determined by the application of science. But as he goes on examining this issue in greater depth, he begins to move away from his initial objection to Lauderdale, writing: "But as heavy industry develops the creation of real wealth depends less on labor time and on the quantity of labor utilized than on the power of mechanized agents which are set into motion during the labor time. The powerful effectiveness of these agents, in its turn, bears no relation to the immediate labor time that their labor cost. It depends rather on the general state of science and on techonological progress, or the aplication of this science to production." Now, Marx will insist that science and technology are the creations of human beings. However the emphasis is no longer on "labour" or the "worker"; rather, it is on the "understanding of nature", "the general powers of the human mind", "intellect", "the application of mechanical and chemical laws" - the worker ceasing to be "an essential part of the process of production". Indeed, with automation the "human factor" is limited to overseeing - "supervising" - the production process. Marx concludes, "As soon as labour, in its direct form, has ceased to be the main source of wealth, then labour time ceases, and must cease, to be its standard of measurement, and thus exchange value must cease to be the measurement of use value" (p. 142). Marx situates this argument in the context of the inevitable collapse of capitalism - and this has led some commentators to assume he is writing about a "future" society. The fact is he is writing about a highly advanced capitalist society. Marx is seemingly aware that his labor theory of value is untenable in the context of this society; and in a revealing passage which comes soon after the above cited remark, he says: "Capital is itself contradiction in action, since it makes an effort to reduce labour time to the minimun, while at the same time establishing labour time as the sole measurement and source of wealth" (142-3). This, of course, sounds like Marx himself: on the one hand, he advances the LTV, on the other he knows that within automated capitalism the contribution of the direct laborer to the production process is being reduced to a minimun! With all due respect to old Chuck, wait a sec! doesn't the development of science and technology, not to mention its application to production involve _labor_? Aren't scientists and engineers workers, despite their relatively exalted status? I don't see how disembodied science can do _anything_. But Marx did not integrate these ideas into his formulation of the labor theory of value in Capital...It is beyond me why marxists continue to insist on the labor theory of value when it is obvious that labor, as Marx says in the Grundrisse, is no longer the principal source of wealth. I don't remember the context of this quote, but isn't he talking about the future? could it not be that this labor-free existence is _still_ in the future, when we all have Buckminster Fuller machines where we simply push a button and what we want comes out? A lot of Marx's predictions haven't come out exactly as described. Is it not possible that he's wrong on this one? What is the logic and evidence behind his argument? That's enough for today. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
Re: labor theory of value
James and Ricardo seem to share the same vulgar-economics confusion: that *value* is the same thing as *wealth*. Marx leaves no room for this confusion. Value *is* the mass of socially necessary labor time embodied in the social product of a given period. Wealth *is* the mass of use-value available to society at any given point in time for consumption, new investment, and maintenance of productive capacity. Value is measured as a quantity of labor time exerted in the period being studied. Use-value is measured as a quantity of *dated* socially necessary labor time. The change in labor productivity from year x to year y is measured as quantity of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year y divided by the quantity of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year x. Clear? Shane Ricardo writes: The labor theory of value in its classical form is untenable. BTW, I'm always puzzled by this phrase. What do _you_ mean by it? As far as I can remember, Marx never used this phrase except to refer to other people's theory (e.g., that of David Ricardo). He never defined it, either, as far as I can tell. (Neo-Ricardians, e.g., use it to mean a "labor theory of price." I don't think that's your meaning, though.) Today science and technology play a greater role in the creation of value than productive labor. In the GRUNDRISSE Marx recognizes this: "But as heavy industry develops the creation of real wealth depends less on labor time and on the quantity of labor utilized than on the power of mechanized agents which are set into motion during the labor time. The powerful effectiveness of these agents, in its turn, bears no relation to the immediate labor time that their labor cost. IT DEPENDS RATHER ON THE GENERAL STATE OF SCIENCE AND ON TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS, OR THE APPLICATION OF THIS SCIENCE TO PRODUCTION." (Italics added). With all due respect to old Chuck, wait a sec! doesn't the development of science and technology, not to mention its application to production involve _labor_? Aren't scientists and engineers workers, despite their relatively exalted status? I don't see how disembodied science can do _anything_. But Marx did not integrate these ideas into his formulation of the labor theory of value in Capital...It is beyond me why marxists continue to insist on the labor theory of value when it is obvious that labor, as Marx says in the Grundrisse, is no longer the principal source of wealth. I don't remember the context of this quote, but isn't he talking about the future? could it not be that this labor-free existence is _still_ in the future, when we all have Buckminster Fuller machines where we simply push a button and what we want comes out? A lot of Marx's predictions haven't come out exactly as described. Is it not possible that he's wrong on this one? What is the logic and evidence behind his argument? That's enough for today. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
Conference: Work, Difference and Social Change
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --3F4D7DD0540C0BE70B15E592 Apologies for Cross Postings! Conference May 8-10, 1998 Work, Difference and Social Change: New Perspectives on Work and Workers Two Decades after Braverman's_Labor and Monopoly Capital_ State University of New York at Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 USA All, The final Conference Announcement and Call for Papers will go out the end of this month. If you'd like a paper announcement, let me know and I'll add your name to our mailing list. In the meantime, you can visit our web page, which has a printable registration form: http://sociology.adm.binghamton.edu/work The page is regularly updated. It will list the final program schedule and paper titles by late March. There have been a few changes since the preliminary announcement: - We have extended our deadline for paper submissions until January. We are doing this to accommodate requests we've had from authors outside the US. - Also in response to several requests, we have decided to accept submissions in French, Spanish and German. Accepted papers will be printed in the Proceedings with an extended English abstract. The conference presentation must still be in English. - We are happy to announce a special panel by the editors of Monthly Review -- Harry Magdoff, Paul Sweezy and Ellen Meiksins Wood. MR Press will announce the 25th Anniversary Edition of _Labor and Monopoly Capital_ at the Conference. - There will exhibits and editorial representative from labor-friendly presses and journals. - Continental Airlines, which provided service to Newark, will no longer serve the Binghamton airport after December. The other New York airports and major US cities are served by US Airways (formerly USAir), Northwestern, and United. We expect another airline to begin service to Newark before the conference. The Syracuse, New York, airport is about an hour further away and is served by a larger number of carriers. It's an easy drive, and week-end car rentals are cheap, especially for several persons traveling together. - And we have a new conference phone -- (607) 777-6844 -- complete with annoying voicemail message in case no one is around to answer it. Our email address remains [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send faxes to (607) 777-4197, attention Conference Committee. We have been pleased by the early response to our first announcement -- more than pleased. Although the deadline is still three months away, we have received a remarkable number of papers. The early submissions are very good and range broadly: the creation of class consciousness among 19th century US industrialists; gendered divisions of labor; work time; commodified images of work; case studies of "participation" schemes; and more. On the basis of the papers already in hand, Braverman +20 will be more international, more activist and more wide-ranging than the first one. And this time we'll have a band. Please contact me if you have any questions or suggestions. For the conference committee, Phil Kraft --3F4D7DD0540C0BE70B15E592 begin: vcard fn: Philip Kraft n: Kraft;Philip org:Department of Sociology adr:SUNY-Binghamton;;;Binghamton;NY;13902-6000; email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work: +1-(607)-777-2585 tel;fax:+1-(607)-777-4197 tel;home: +1-(607)-770-9370 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE end:vcard --3F4D7DD0540C0BE70B15E592--
Re: The Lockean Proviso
At 04:01 PM 10/20/97 -0400, Gil Skillman wrote, inter alia: Hmm. What can the "exchange-value" of a good (as opposed, for example, the good's "value") refer to, if not to price *in some sense*? The ability to fetch other goods that coincides, yet is analytically different from price. I can put on the market a fine antique from the early Gates era (aka XT running DOS 3.1) I own, with the price tag of $100. The antique has a price, but (most likely) no exchange value. Regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233
global inequality data
Dear Pen-L'rs, Does anyone know of an easy reference source for figures on the GLOBAL distribution of income and wealth, and historical trends in regard to each? Both internet and paper references appreciated. thanks, Thad Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad
FYI: Capital's Gain
Regarding a subject that has come up on this list, namely the current very high rates of profit and capital share of income in the U.S. and other advanced nations, the interested reader is referred to: http://epn.org/prospect/33/33mishfs.html This is an article by Larry Mishel of EPI (my boss, quite coincidentally) in The American Prospect. The only thing we're trying to make out of these results is the idea that the economy can currently support higher pay (at the expense of capital income) without waves of business bankruptcy. Fans of some kind of imminent crisis theory might still have resort to arguments regarding the volatility of profits and finance in general. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: The New Zealand Experiment
Those interested in the New Zealand Economic Experiment may be interested in a brief paper by Paul Dalziel, Reader in Economics, Department of Economics and Marketing, Lincoln University. I reproduce its abstract and conclusion below. Paul has not yet had it accepted for publication, but is happy for it to be distributed and is interested in comments, so I can send a Word 6 version to those who are interested. I'd like one. For any PEN-L members in the D.C. area, we're having two NZ trade union leaders in for a talk on November 17. Write me for details. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
theory of societal wealth
This missive (and the various threads it combines) probably belong on ope-l rather than on pen-l, but I don't belong to the former. Shane Mage writes: James and Ricardo seem to share the same vulgar- economics confusion: that *value* is the same thing as *wealth*. Marx leaves no room for this confusion. Value *is* the mass of socially necessary labor time embodied in the social product of a given period. Wealth *is* the mass of use-value available to society at any given point in time for consumption, new investment, and maintenance of productive capacity. Value is measured as a quantity of labor time exerted in the period being studied. Use-value is measured as a quantity of *dated* socially necessary labor time. ... Clear? No. The word "wealth" has at least two meanings, use-value and exchange- value. I haven't seen Marx refer to quantification of use-value in that way. My impression -- and I am not going to get into Marxology -- is that he didn't quantify the mass of use-values at all (though he did quantify use-values of different sorts). That makes sense, since aggregate "utility" can't be quantified (even if we assume it can for individuals). Use-values are measured as vectors (ten tons of steel, seven pounds of butter, 100 loaves of bread, etc.), not scalars. "Wealth" as a mass of use-values is thus a vector. Of course, there is nothing to prevent us from going beyond Marx here, to use index number techniques to add up the vector. "Wealth" could also be "societal wealth" (wealth in society, as opposed to gifts of nature). This is exchange value, measured in the number of hours of socially-necessary abstract labor time (snalt) needed to produce it. I guess we agree here. (BTW, I am uncomfortable with the word "embodied" -- even though Marx used it (at least in the translation I have handy). It takes more concrete labor of low skill to produce an item that it does labor of high skill. It sounds like the there's more labor "embodied" in the item that the first worker makes than in the second, but Marx says no. Marx also noted that the value of durable products can differ from the amount originally put into producing it (the usual meaning of "embodied") as labor productivity rises.) Ricardo writes: I think we can leave aside the biblical question as to whether Marx used the term "labor theory of value". That's the term we now commonly employ; in fact, those who raised this very objection used it in those very missives. Yes, let's leave aside bibilical questions (though Ricardo goes on to quote the "bible" at length). But a lot of people talk about something called a "labor theory of value" without explaining what it means. Often it's a Ricardian theory of price (a different Ricardo, of course). Most objections to the "LTV" seem to be to the Ricardian theory of price (and the idea that individual prices should and can be mathematically derived from individual values). It's always good to be clear what one is discussing, attacking, or defending. To make it clear what I'm talking about when I talk about the "labor theory of value," I'll call it the "labor theory of societal wealth." BTW, I think that Fred Moseley's article in his edited volume MARX'S METHOD IN CAPITAL (1993) is excellent on value/price relations. As far as the claim that Marx is talking about a `future society', I say he is talking about a future CAPITALIST society Marx will insist that science and technology are the creations of human beings. However the emphasis is no longer on "labour" or the "worker"; rather, it is on the "understanding of nature", "the general powers of the human mind", "intellect", "the application of mechanical and chemical laws" - the worker ceasing to be "an essential part of the process of production". Indeed, with automation the "human factor" is limited to overseeing - "supervising" - the production process but labor still plays a role. Who repairs and programs the machines? Isn't supervision a kind of labor? Marx is seemingly aware that his labor theory of value is untenable in the context of this society; and in a revealing passage which comes soon after the above cited remark, he says: "Capital is itself contradiction in action, since it makes an effort to reduce labour time to the minimun, while at the same time establishing labour time as the sole measurement and source of wealth" (142-3). This, of course, sounds like Marx himself: on the one hand, he advances the LTV, on the other he knows that within automated capitalism the contribution of the direct laborer to the production process is being reduced to a minimun! This is very much Marx: capitalism tries to abolish the role of labor in producing value and surplus-value. But it can't do so. So there is crisis. Absent the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by something else, however, value dominates, i.e., labor remains the source of societal wealth. The fact that we still have capitalism suggests that labor is still the
Re: labor theory of value
No explanation is required for a passage from a rough draft ("Rohentwurf")
which its author chose not to use in the published version, which alone can
be taken to represent his considered formulation. In any case, this
passage is no evidence that, when he was writing his rough draft for
Kapital, Marx was afflicted by the vulgar confusion between *wealth* and
*value*. But in the published Kapital, vol. 1, Marx takes great pains to
obviate any such conclusion. This discussion shows how right he was!
Shane
If Marx leaves no such confusion, how do you explain the very
first sentence of the passage I quoted below where Marx links
directly the creation of "real wealth" with "labor time"?
Today science and technology play a greater role in the creation of value
than productive labor. In the GRUNDRISSE Marx recognizes this: "But as
heavy industry develops the creation of real wealth depends less on labor
time and on the quantity of labor utilized than on the power of mechanized
agents which are set into motion during the labor time. The powerful
effectiveness of these agents, in its turn, bears no relation to the
immediate labor time that their labor cost. IT DEPENDS RATHER ON THE
GENERAL STATE OF SCIENCE AND ON TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS, OR THE APPLICATION
OF THIS
SCIENCE TO PRODUCTION." (Italics added).
James and Ricardo seem to share the same vulgar-economics confusion: that
*value* is the same thing as *wealth*. Marx leaves no room for this
confusion. Value *is* the mass of socially necessary labor time embodied
in the social product of a given period. Wealth *is* the mass of use-value
available to society at any given point in time for consumption, new
investment, and maintenance of productive capacity. Value is measured as a
quantity of labor time exerted in the period being studied. Use-value is
measured as a quantity of *dated* socially necessary labor time. The
change in labor productivity from year x to year y is measured as quantity
of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year
y divided by the quantity of use-value produced by t hours of socially
necessary labor time in year x. Clear?
Shane
