Re: Marx's Proof
Doug, I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and perhaps misses what might be important. Among other things you wrote: "Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what political or intellectual progress exactly?" Yet this is a good question. Let me suggest some possible answers: 1. We, radicals, have little sense of how technical change takes place in capitalist society. That is, the common interpretation of Marx is that technical change is labor displacing at all costs. Laibman goes as far as to say that capitalists innovate in a "Rube Goldberg" fashion. That is, labor replacing technical change takes place at all costs. That is what ortho Marxism has held for over a century. I doubt this is true and do not impute that view to anyone, save David, in particular. So what? Seems to me that anyone with this view could easily grab hold of the idea that an alternative to capitalism could exist side by side with a society growing in such "Rube Goldberg" fashion. 2. Within traditional approaches to Marx as well as in standard eco thought, little if any attention is paid to "moral depreciation". Indeed, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this type of depreciation disappear as one simultaneously values inputs and outputs. Thus, in theory, we can create situations in which a capitalist invests $100, ends up with $20 and have a rising rate of profit. The usual understanding of Marx's concept of valuation incorporate this absurd possibility. Put simply, using Marx's concept of value, we should be able to grasp how technical changes take place in capitalism and what are the consequent changes in valuation. If we can't, we should move on to something else. I do not feel that seeking answers to this problem is a sub for activism nor do I find the concepts alienated. John
Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Question to Roemer readers: If we assume that the LTV and/or the LOV is, at best, "redundant", does the concept of total social labor exist in a quantative form? In other words, without Marx's notion of value, how can one add up labor time? Or, do we just add up concrete labor hours and say that's that. Or do we just dismiss the notion as 19th Century nonsense? thanks
Suppression
Eric Nilsson [PEN-L:22916] challenges Andrew Kliman to produce evidence of suppression at the hands of URPE/RRPE. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd edition, gives the following definition of "suppress": "3. to prevent or prohibit the publication of " So Nilsson is demanding proof of the obvious. Nilsson: "Andrew Kliman has absolutely no evidence that URPE/RRPE has suppressed him." URPE/RRPE: "the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication." Nilsson: "Andrew Kliman has merely asserted that he was won a victory over suppression. But what is the evidence that he ever faced such suppression?" URPE/RRPE: "the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication." Nilsson: "Andrew Kliman has absolutely NO evidence that he has ever faced suppression by RRPE. If he does he should SHOW US THE EVIDENCE." URPE/RRPE: "the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication." Nilsson: "Where is this evidence Andrew? Where's the beef?" URPE/RRPE: "the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication." Nilsson: "It is dishonest to claim you have evidence for such a claim when you have absolutely no evidence for it." URPE/RRPE: "the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication." Nilsson: "If you can't come up with the evidence everyone will know you are lying." URPE/RRPE: "the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication." John Ernst
Re: Review of Radical Political Economics statement
The "misunderstanding" and how it arose all by itself remains a bit of a mystery. Hopefully, the RRPE will be able to watch out for it in the future. Alas, I fear that it will be difficult to raise funds to offset the legal costs, as Justin suggests. Funds to defeat misunderstandings of unknown orgins are scarce. At 11:36 AM 02/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Chris Burford wrote: > >>I was glad to see on the website of the Review of Radical Political Economics >> >>http://www.urpe.org/rrpehome.html >> >>>the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the >>>right to submit articles to RRPE for publication >> >>It also clarifies what it describes as a misunderstanding, and I am >>sure could well have been a misunderstanding. > >URPE spent something like $15,000 defending itself against Kliman's >lawsuit, which has very nearly bankrupted the organization. But hey, >it's important to get those value theory papers out there if we want >to overturn bourgeois rule. > >Doug > >
Value Talk
" ... if you want to point out that there's exploitation going on. you don't need the LTV to do this" I'm not entirely sure why one would merely want to point out that exploitation is going on in capitalist society. In theory, it seems to me that this is a static approach to reality. In practice, most people who work would say--Fine. Exploit me. But I'll settle for a steady job with good pay. What Marx attempts to show is that in the process of creating new value, already existing value in the form of fixed capital is destroyed. It is this destruction of value that makes increasing the degree of exploration a capitalist imperative. If a capitalist can make a 20% return using a new machine, then those with older machines making, say 15%, can only minimize the amount they must write-off by exploiting their workers more efficiently. At the same time, the 20% fellows can't rest easy as their machines may face the same fate in the not so distant future. Thus, workers are never offered that steady job with good pay.
[PEN-L:6024] RE: Higher Ed. $$$ & Class
Are the following "facts" true? 1. Faculty salaries are not keeping up with inflation. 2. Charges for a college education abstracting from financial aid and state subsidies are increasing faster than inflation. If they are true, where is the money going?
[PEN-L:5794] Depreciation
Of late, I've been thinking about the way depreciation is dealt with in Marxian thought. In pursuing this I find it the manner in which accountants deal with depreciation in keeping books curious. As we know, there are various ways in which an item can be depreciated -- straight line, sum of the digits, double declining balance, etc. Where and how did the various techniques arise? Or, more generally, is there such a thing as the "history of accounting thought" that traces the origins of these techniques? John Ernst
