Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Michael Perelman]

Chris, Marx puts the dynamism in, in part, by saying that value represents
the cost of REPRODUCTION, not production.  This is a key element in his
analysis of the devalorization of capital.

Chris Burford wrote:

> At 06/02/02 20:10 -0800, you wrote:
> >This definition of course does not capture the systemic and dynamic
> >features which Chris B is attempting to build into his definition.
>
> "The law of value of commodities ultimately determines how much of its
> disposable working-time society can expend on each particular class of
> commodities."
>
> V  Vol I  Ch 14Sec 4
>
> And how could Marx define the "absolute general law of capitalist
> accumulation" in the way he does in Ch XXV if his theory of value was not
> a) dynamic
> b )systemic?
>
> Mine is not an overimaginative reading of the overall thrust of Marx's
> approach, (although unimaginative readings of Marx's theory are more than
> possible).
>
> Chris Burford

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Christian,
Can't follow what you're getting at. Please restate.


>Rakesh,
>
>>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):
>
>>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which 
>>potentially objectified in a commodity has as its only and 
>>necessary form of appearance units of money.
>
>This is what I meant yesterday by "debt and wages" as the terms of 
>capital depreciation.

Well that's not what I mean since I still don't understand what you are saying.



>  If I were being polemical, I might ask how you know that money 
>always distorts value if you have no other measure of it.

What's the problem?



>It seems to me that you accept that

what is the reference to that?



>  as a first principle, based on the existential description of class 
>antagonism. But I wonder if this distortion always takes the same 
>shape: is the value produced by the LA Lakers distorted in the same 
>way as that by the workers who prep and clean the Staples center? I 
>don't think so, although you could argue that what's being distorted 
>is the snalt, not subjective labor time. Wage differences (like 
>wages themselves), you might say, express this distortion. But then 
>you're left explaining how Shaq's and Kobe's wages, as 
>representations of surplus value/snalt are only in _appearance_ 
>(since that's what wages are) different from those of the staff at 
>Staples--in principle, they really aren't different; there's still 
>extraction of surpl!
>us!
>  value;, it just looks like they have better lives because their are 
>multimillionaires. Then what?
>
>Christian

Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>
>And how could Marx define the "absolute general law of capitalist 
>accumulation" in the way he does in Ch XXV if his theory of value 
>was not
>a) dynamic
>b )systemic?
>
>
>
>Mine is not an overimaginative reading of the overall thrust of 
>Marx's approach, (although unimaginative readings of Marx's theory 
>are more than possible).
>
>
>Chris Burford

Not at all Chris. I was suggesting that my definition was limited, in 
need of supplmentation because it did not capture the meanings on 
which you are rightly focused.

Rakesh

FW: Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Devine, James]

[this was sent by mistake, before I finished it.]

>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<

Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as  part od [of?] a theory of crisis, as a component of his
account of commodity fetishism, as an account of the nature of money, and,
of course, as the explanation of profit, exploitation, surplus value, and
the rate of these things.<

That's right: Marx's Law of Value was a component of his account of
commodity fetishism, or is rather implied by his whole vision of the
capitalist system, which involves commodity fetishism (or the "illusions
created by competition" of volume III). Like Locke before him (who developed
a very non-Marxian labor theory of property), money is central to Marx's
LoV. The key thing about the LoV is that it "applies" -- as a
true-by-definition accounting system that's an alternative to doing one's
accounting in price terms -- for the capitalist system as a whole or to the
average capital (abstract capital) representing the system as a whole. 

>However, he correctly started from the premises that to do this work, value
had to be quantity with a determinable magnitude, and price is the point of
entry into that because value "appears" as price and profit in the
phenonemal world. If value theory breaks down there, it's toast, as Marx
also recognized, which is why he and Engels and traditional Marxism were
concerned with the transformation problem.<

It's surplus-value that "appears" as profit in the "phenomenal world," i.e.,
the world that we perceive rather than the world revealed by applying the
acid of abstraction. (It's only Roemer who sees profit as in essence a
scarcity price.) But no matter. Marx's concern with the so-called
transformation problem (the derivation of values from prices or vice-versa)
comes from his early learning from Ricardo. But then he takes the whole
issue in a different direction. 

For Marx, as I read him, the movement from value to price (or price of
production) is not mathematical as much as it is one of moving from a high
level of abstraction (volume I of CAPITAL) to a lower one (volume III). In
volume I, he focused on capital as a whole (as represented by the
representative capitalist, Mr. Moneybags), abstracting from the
heterogeneity of many capitals and the relationships amongst them.
Step-by-step, he brings in aspects of the picture from which he had
abstracted, until he gets to volume III, where he deals with how the
"configurations of capital" "appear on the surface of society, in the action
of different capitals on one another, i.e., in competition, and in the
everyday consciousness of the agents of production themselves" (from the
first page of text in volume III). 

In this light, the so-called "transformation problem" should be seen as a
"disaggregation problem," going from the whole to the heterogeneous parts
that make it up. In Marx's thought, the distinction between individual
values and individual prices is as important as their unity. (For example,
the value produced by money-lenders equals zero in Marx's theory, but they
receive revenues: they are paid a price for their services.)  The
distinction represents the role of heterogeneity of capitals and
competition, whereas the unity (represented by his equations total value =
total price and total surplus-value = total profits+interest+rent)
represents the fact that the heterogeneity and competition take place within
a unified whole. (The revenues received by the money-lenders is a deduction
from the surplus-value that the industrial capitalists have organized the
production of.) 

>In these respect he was more intellectually honest that the latter-day
defenders of value  theory who want the "quantity" without being able to
determine its measure.<

to whom are you referring? and what does this mean? It's quite possible to
measure values, though  only approximately. But note that even prices can be
very hard to measure, especially since the quality of diffferent products
varies and the cost of buying something can involve non-monetary or hidden
monetary elements. 

Justin continues >... I don't understand why you think you can't explain
inequality with value theory. Here's Roemer['s explanation: the bourgeoisie
grabbed the means of production by force or acquired them by luck, and used
their ill-gotten resources to maintain their unfair advantages. Not a
whisper of value, and so far as it goes a perfectly true, and indeed Marxian
explanation.<

In our old article in ECONMICS & PHILOSOPHY, Gary Dymski and I devastated
Roemer's theory. He has no explanation of why the capitalists continue to
receive profits over time. Blinkered by general equilibrium theory, he
presents an equilibrium (i.e., inadequate) theory which cannot explain why
the key variable in the story -- the scarcity of "capital goods" -- persists
over time. Th

RE: Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Devine, James]

>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<

Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as  part od [of?] a theory of crisis, as a component of his
account of commodity fetishism, as an account of the nature of money, and,
of course, as the explanation of profit, exploitation, surplus value, and
the rate of these things.<

That's right: Marx's Law of Value was a component of his account of
commodity fetishism, or is rather implied by his whole vision of the
capitalist system, which involves commodity fetishism (or the "illusions
created by competition" of volume III). Like Locke before him (who developed
a very non-Marxian labor theory of property), money is central to Marx's
LoV. The key thing about the LoV is that it "applies" -- as a
true-by-definition accounting system that's an alternative to doing one's
accounting in price terms -- for the capitalist system as a whole or to the
average capital (abstract capital) representing the system as a whole. 

>However, he correctly started from the premises that to do this work, value
had to be quantity with a determinable magnitude, and price is the point of
entry into that because value "appears" as price and profit in the
phenonemal world. If value theory breaks down there, it's toast, as Marx
also recognized, which is why he and Engels and traditional Marxism were
concerned with the transformation problem.<

It's surplus-value that "appears" as profit in the "phenomenal world," i.e.,
the world that we perceive rather than the world revealed by applying the
acid of abstraction. (It's only Roemer who sees profit as in essence a
scarcity price.) But no matter. Marx's concern with the so-called
transformation problem (the derivation of values from prices or vice-versa)
comes from his early learning from Ricardo. But then he takes the whole
issue in a different direction. 

For Marx, as I read him, the movement from value to price (or price of
production) is not mathematical as much as it is one of moving from a high
level of abstraction (volume I of CAPITAL) to a lower one (volume III). In
volume I, he focused on capital as a whole (as represented by the
representative capitalist, Mr. Moneybags), abstracting from the
heterogeneity of many capitals and the relationships amongst them.
Step-by-step, he brings in aspects of the picture from which he had
abstracted, until he gets to volume III, where he deals with how the
"configurations of capital" "appear on the surface of society, in the action
of different capitals on one another, i.e., in competition, and in the
everyday consciousness of the agents of production themselves" (from the
first page of text in volume III). 

In this light, the so-called "transformation problem" should be seen as a
"disaggregation problem," going from the whole to the heterogeneous parts
that make it up. In Marx's thought, the distinction between individual
values and individual prices is as important as their unity. (For example,
the value produced by money-lenders equals zero in Marx's theory, but they
receive revenues: they are paid a price for their services.)  The
distinction represents the role of heterogeneity of capitals and
competition, whereas the unity (represented by his equations total value =
total price and total surplus-value = total profits+interest+rent)
represents the fact that the heterogeneity and competition take place within
a unified whole. (The revenues received by the money-lenders is a deduction
from the surplus-value that the industrial capitalists have organized the
production of.) 

>In these respect he was more intellectually honest that the latter-day
defenders of value  theory who want the "quantity" without being able to
determine its measure.<

to whom are you referring? and what does this mean? 

It should also be noted that prices are very hard to measure, especially
since the quality of diffferent products varies among them and over time. 
> 
> >
> >And from the perspective of it being an expanation of 
> exploitation, some of
> >us would say that childen notice there are grossly unfair 
> and inexplicable
> >differences in society.
> 
> Unlike me, right? I think that all the inequalities that 
> exist are just 
> great. But here you depart from Marxism: "Unfair" is a charge 
> he would 
> dismissa sa  bourgeois whine. As a liberal democrat, I myself 
> think he was 
> wrong about that--I think justice talk is very important--but 
> I find it odd 
> that you insist on orthodoxy in political economy while 
> rejecting Marx's 
> ideologiekritik of morality in general and talk of justice 
> and fairness in 
> particular.
> 
> Finally, I don't understand why you think you can't explain 
> inequality with 
> value theory. Here's Roemer['s explanation: the bourgeoisie 
> grabbed the 
> means of production by force or acquired them by luck, and used their 
> ill-gotten r

Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[christian11]

Rakesh,

>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):

>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which potentially objectified in 
>a commodity has as its only and necessary form of appearance units of money.

This is what I meant yesterday by "debt and wages" as the terms of capital 
depreciation. If I were being polemical, I might ask how you know that money always 
distorts value if you have no other measure of it. It seems to me that you accept that 
as a first principle, based on the existential description of class antagonism. But I 
wonder if this distortion always takes the same shape: is the value produced by the LA 
Lakers distorted in the same way as that by the workers who prep and clean the Staples 
center? I don't think so, although you could argue that what's being distorted is the 
snalt, not subjective labor time. Wage differences (like wages themselves), you might 
say, express this distortion. But then you're left explaining how Shaq's and Kobe's 
wages, as representations of surplus value/snalt are only in _appearance_ (since 
that's what wages are) different from those of the staff at Staples--in principle, 
they really aren't different; there's still extraction of surpl!
us!
 value;, it just looks like they have better lives because their are 
multimillionaires. Then what?

Christian

Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Justin Schwartz]

>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
>of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?

Not merely. Marx attemptedto use value theory to do a lot of work, e.g., as 
part od a theory of crisis, as a component of his account of commodity 
fetishism, as an account of the nature of money, and, of course, as the 
explanation of profit, exploitation, surplus value, and the rate of these 
things. However, he correctly started from the premises that to do this 
work, value had to be quantity with a determinable magnitude, and price is 
the point of entry into that because value "appears" as price and profit in 
the phenonemal world. If value theory breaks down there, it's toast, as Marx 
also recognized, which is why he and Engels and traditional Marxism were 
concerned with the transformation problem. In these respect he was more 
intellectually honest that the latter-day defenders of value theory who want 
the "quantity" without being able to determine its measure.

>
>And from the perspective of it being an expanation of exploitation, some of
>us would say that childen notice there are grossly unfair and inexplicable
>differences in society.

Unlike me, right? I think that all the inequalities that exist are just 
great. But here you depart from Marxism: "Unfair" is a charge he would 
dismissa sa  bourgeois whine. As a liberal democrat, I myself think he was 
wrong about that--I think justice talk is very important--but I find it odd 
that you insist on orthodoxy in political economy while rejecting Marx's 
ideologiekritik of morality in general and talk of justice and fairness in 
particular.

Finally, I don't understand why you think you can't explain inequality with 
value theory. Here's Roemer['s explanation: the bourgeoisie grabbed the 
means of production by force or acquired them by luck, and used their 
ill-gotten resources to maintain their unfair advantages. Not a whisper of 
value, and so far as it goes a perfectly true, and indeed Marxian 
explanation.

Some of us would say that the marxian theory
>of
>value is much bigger than an explanation of exploitation.
>
>Without being persuaded by us, do you acknowedge that such different
>perspectives exist?

Do you mean, do I recognize that you persist in error? Yes.

jks

_
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Re: Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Justin Schwartz]

> > I discuss this is What's Wrong with Exploitation?, look it up, and see 
>if
> > you disagree. jks
>
>What is wrong is endegenous accumulation which is enabled by "exploitation"
>as the profit source. And if endogenous accumulation is possible, 
>capitalism
>can not experience crises. Rosa Luxemburg understood that, ninety years 
>ago.
>


Say more, I don't understand this.

jks

_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Heuristics Re: RE: LOV and LTV

[Carrol Cox]

A wonderful story on heuristics.

Back in the fall of 1970 I got subpoened by a legislative commit6ee
investigating campus disorders. They were a bunch of buffoons -- as
shown beautifully by their interrogation of a professor of electrical
engineering from the U of I. He was a German emigre and stepped right
out of a cartoon of a kindly old professor.

The background was that for many years he had taught a quiet course in
the Engineering school on heuristics, in which only engineering students
enrolled. As part of the jazzing up of distribution requirements back in
the late '60s they made his course available to the general student
body. The idea he came up with was to let the students choose their own
goal, it could be anything sensible or not, and then their semester
project would be to establish how they would work out the means to that
end. They came up with some doozies. How to make a fortune selling
marijuana. How to blow up the student union building. All sorts of
"sixtyish" projects. The good Illinois senators decided that it was all
a commie plot hauled him down to springfield to testify. The high point
came when they began grilling him on those students who had,
purportedly, refused to carry out the project. The Illinois Legislators
(name for one of the lower forms of life) obviously thought that he had
assigned subversive topics and that some patriotic students had refused
to carry out the nefarious work. His reply (in a gentle German accent
but very clear): "I'm sorry, zey vas just lazy bums!."

Carrol

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Devine, James]

JKS writes: >>> I have said as much here. But it's [the Marxian Law of Value
is] a far more limited heuristic than you seem to think. It's basically
useful for showing ina simple way that there's exploitation going on.
However, you can do this without it.<<<

quoth me: >>as I write on the margins of term papers now and then, assertion
is not the same as proof. I've published a couple of articles about the
utility of value. If you want the references, I'll send them to you.<<

he responds:> Right, Professor. I used to be a Professor too, and I think I
may have heard of the concept. I also think I have argued the point.<

dunno. It seems that you rest too much on your laurels rather than your
logic, citing published articles rather than explaining your point of view,
your assumptions, how they are applied, etc. 

>I would very much appreciate if you would send me the _papers_ (snail mail:
ADDRESS SUPPRESSSED TO PRESERVE PRIVACY). <

They're in the snail-mail. 
JDevine
 

Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Romain Kroes]

> I discuss this is What's Wrong with Exploitation?, look it up, and see if
> you disagree. jks

What is wrong is endegenous accumulation which is enabled by "exploitation"
as the profit source. And if endogenous accumulation is possible, capitalism
can not experience crises. Rosa Luxemburg understood that, ninety years ago.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Justin Schwartz]

>
> > I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you
>seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina  simple way that
>there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it.<
>
>as I write on the margins of term papers now and then, assertion is not the
>same as proof. I've published a couple of articles about the utility of
>value. If you want the references, I'll send them to you.
>

Right, Professor. I used to be a Professor too, and I think I may have heard 
of the concept. I also think I have argued the point. I would very much 
appreciate if you would send me the _papers_ (snail mail: 2227 Lincolnwood 
Dr. Evanston IL 60201). I lack easy access to a U library, not being a 
Professor anymore. I will do the same, if you like, with the papers I have 
written attacking the utility of the LTV or showing that we can do without 
it.

jks

_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Title: Re: [PEN-L:22419] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV
and


Why is domination functional for increasing
exploitation? The answer highlights a third problem with Roemer's
argument which turns on a crucial assumption of his models. In these
what workers sell is labour, not labour power, or,
equivalently, labour contracts are costlessly enforceable (1986b,
269). This is a consequence of the Walrasian assumption that there
are no transaction costs, including those of contract enforcement,
i.e., that markets are 'complete'. But this assumption is not a minor
technical issue. Its effect is to undermine domination as an ethical
reason for interest in exploitation by calling into question the
explanatory interest simpliciter of domination.

Marx argues that workers sell labour power, their ability to
work (1967a, 167-169).

Justin, this is extremely well put, 
though it leaves us with the task of reconstructing Marx's logic. How
is it that Marx discovers on the island of free wage labor (i..e,
workers own no means of production) that the proletariat alienates
labor power rather than (as it seems) labor time?

rb

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Justin Schwartz]

>
> >I have argued this point ins ome detail in my What's Wrong with
> >Exploitation? Nous 1995,
>
>At this point I must once more apologise for having taken a somewhat snippy
>tone in this thread; it is entirely because I am an idiot.  I seem to have
>acquired the belief that "What's Wrong with Exploitation?" and "In Defense
>of Exploitation" were the same paper and that this paper was called "In
>Defence [note spelling] of Exploitation".  As a result I've been searching
>fruitlessly for this non-paper for the last three days and was beginning to
>uncharitably suspect that it didn't exist.  A thousand apologies.  In the
>circumstances, I agree that we'd better stop; I may come back on this once
>I've read the papers if I still disagree.  Alternatively, if I find that I
>agree with you, I promise to start a cult in your name and argue with
>anybody who I decide is misinterpreting you :-)
>
>dd

Here is the link to a draft (slightly different from the published version):

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/marxism/Exploit.htm

In defence of exploitation, Econ & Phil 1995, is at

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/marxism/DefenseE.htm

The Brit editors britishized the spelling ("behaviour," "defence," and the 
like). I wrote it in good 'murrican.

jks

>
>
>___
>Email Disclaimer
>
>This communication is for the attention of the
>named recipient only and should not be passed
>on to any other person. Information relating to
>any company or security, is for information
>purposes only and should not be interpreted as
>a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security.
>The information on which this communication is based
>has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable,
>but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
>All expressions of opinion are subject to change
>without notice.  All e-mail messages, and associated attachments,
>are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes.
>___
>


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Re: RE: LOV and LTV

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>Charles writes:
> > Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ?  Seems to be a sort 
>of
>ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
>...what ? Theoretical concept ?   What is the term for other types of ideas
>( that are more than heuristic ) that are used in scientific or economic
>theories ?

"Theory," "law," "variable," etc.

"Heuristic devices" seem to be tools used in a scientific or
>knowledge process, but not the ultimate theoretical concepts. <

Could not have said it better myself. jks

>

_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Davies, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:17 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22376] RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV



>I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic
than you
>seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina  simple way
that
>there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without
it. jks

It's also useful for showing that the exploitation (defined in
Roemer's
sense) is a result of social factors rather than technical ones; I
don't
think you can do this without ending up committed to something
which has
most of the characteristics of the LTV.

The clearest non-LTV demonstration that there is exploitation is
Joan
Robinson's observation that ownership is not an activity therefore
it is not
a productive activity, so any rewards to ownership must come out of
someone
else's production.  But without something like the LTV, we miss a
lot of
what is important about specifically *marxist* exploitation.  It's
possible
to believe that there is exploitation in this sense, but that this
is
because of a technical factor; that capital has a marginal
productivity.  In
order to see that the reward to capital is a result of social
relations
rather than relations between things, you need to get off the fence
and make
more definite statements about value.

dd


=

Why not focus on ownership, property, contract, corporate
governance etc. in a manner that fellow citizens can relate to. How
would value theory help the working class understand Enron and
Argentina?

Ian

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Davies, Daniel]

Justin wrote:

>I have argued this point ins ome detail in my What's Wrong with 
>Exploitation? Nous 1995,

At this point I must once more apologise for having taken a somewhat snippy
tone in this thread; it is entirely because I am an idiot.  I seem to have
acquired the belief that "What's Wrong with Exploitation?" and "In Defense
of Exploitation" were the same paper and that this paper was called "In
Defence [note spelling] of Exploitation".  As a result I've been searching
fruitlessly for this non-paper for the last three days and was beginning to
uncharitably suspect that it didn't exist.  A thousand apologies.  In the
circumstances, I agree that we'd better stop; I may come back on this once
I've read the papers if I still disagree.  Alternatively, if I find that I
agree with you, I promise to start a cult in your name and argue with
anybody who I decide is misinterpreting you :-)

dd


___
Email Disclaimer

This communication is for the attention of the
named recipient only and should not be passed
on to any other person. Information relating to
any company or security, is for information
purposes only and should not be interpreted as
a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security.
The information on which this communication is based
has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable,
but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
All expressions of opinion are subject to change
without notice.  All e-mail messages, and associated attachments,
are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes.
___

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Fred Guy]

Devine, James wrote:

>I wrote: >>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's
>"laws" are dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in
>Justin's terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.<<
>
>Justin writes: > How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated
>relatoon among variables"? The laws of quantum mechanics are as precisely
>formulated as could be, and nondeterministic too.<
>
>they are deterministic in that they make very specific predictions. 
>
Wow. That's a broad definition of deterministic. Are bookies determinists?

Fred


_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Devine, James]

I wrote: >>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's
"laws" are dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in
Justin's terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.<<

Justin writes: > How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated
relatoon among variables"? The laws of quantum mechanics are as precisely
formulated as could be, and nondeterministic too.<

they are deterministic in that they make very specific predictions. 

>Fallback to "dialectics," though, raises my antennae, because it is often
an excuse to talk a lot of nonsense. I think Marx was genuinely dialectical
in a specific Hegelian sense--he  proceeds by immanent critique, for
example--but this isn't a matter of giving an alternative to explanation by
means of probabalistic laws or tendecies, but rather a style of explanation
that offers a framework for offering lawlike explanations.<

Yes, "dialectics" are often used to speak nonsense, just as "the economic
way of thinking" that shows up in textbooks is. But I wasn't "falling back"
to dialectics (and I don't understand why you think I was doing so). Rather,
I was pointing to the intellectual tradition that Marx belonged to, which
meant that he used the word "law" in a different way than modern social
science does. That's all. If you don't situate a thinker in his or her
tradition, it weakens your understanding of his or her thought. Among other
things, different traditions use words differently. See Ollman's excellent
book, ALIENATION, for example.  (Frankly, I don't like the way Marx uses
words -- as having varying meanings depending on context -- but it's
important for understanding's sake to understand what he was doing.) 

It's good to get beyond a knee-jerk reaction (pro _or_ con) to the word
"dialectics." That kind of thing encourages the rigidity of thought. 

>>BTW, the "laws" of supply & demand are also non-determinist. S&D cannot
give specific answers to anything in the abstract. Rather, they have to be
given empirical content. S&D might best be seen as a (an?) heuristic, acting
as a guide to thought. Of course, Marx's value theory -- or law  of value --
is also a heuristic.<<
 
> I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you
seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina  simple way that
there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it.<

as I write on the margins of term papers now and then, assertion is not the
same as proof. I've published a couple of articles about the utility of
value. If you want the references, I'll send them to you. 

-- Jim Devine
 

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>The clearest non-LTV demonstration that there is exploitation is Joan
>Robinson's observation that ownership is not an activity therefore it is 
>not
>a productive activity, so any rewards to ownership must come out of someone
>else's production.  But without something like the LTV, we miss a lot of
>what is important about specifically *marxist* exploitation.  It's possible
>to believe that there is exploitation in this sense, but that this is
>because of a technical factor; that capital has a marginal productivity.  
>In
>order to see that the reward to capital is a result of social relations
>rather than relations between things, you need to get off the fence and 
>make
>more definite statements about value.
>
>

I have argued this point ins ome detail in my What's Wrong with 
Exploitation? Nous 1995, from which you might as well be paraphrasing, 
except that while I say the notion of value in a broad sense has an 
important theoretical role to play, and labor time is an important component 
of it, particukarly in accounting for profit, the LTV as I have defined it 
here is false and unnecessary. You might well say that I have conceded 
enough so that I mighta s well admit the LTV is true. But this is a glass 
half-empty/full matter. I could justa s well as that if you admit that value 
is not definitionally or empirically equivalent to labor time, you might as 
well admit that the LTV is false.

Some of the issue between these alternatives may be the difference between 
those who think of themselves as Marxists possessed of a  new science,a 
holistic theoretical explanation of the nature of capitalsim, and pragmatic 
radicals like myself who are cheerly eclectic, willing to borrow from Marx, 
Hayek, Weber, Robinson, Keynes, etc., but who have no pretense to having 
more than mid level scientific theories that may help us muddle through in 
our reformsit ways towards unseen but aspired to radical ends.
I don't think we are making progress here, hadn't we best stop?

_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Carrol Cox]

"Devine, James" wrote:
> 
>  Of course, Marx's value theory -- or law of value -- is
> also a heuristic.
> 

Isn't that the primary function of most (or all) "laws"? The Law of
Value serves primarily to focus attention on (a) the historicity of
capitalism and (b) the oranization and temporal allocation of living
human activity under capitalism?

Carrol

RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Davies, Daniel]

>I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you 
>seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina  simple way that 
>there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it. jks

It's also useful for showing that the exploitation (defined in Roemer's
sense) is a result of social factors rather than technical ones; I don't
think you can do this without ending up committed to something which has
most of the characteristics of the LTV.  

The clearest non-LTV demonstration that there is exploitation is Joan
Robinson's observation that ownership is not an activity therefore it is not
a productive activity, so any rewards to ownership must come out of someone
else's production.  But without something like the LTV, we miss a lot of
what is important about specifically *marxist* exploitation.  It's possible
to believe that there is exploitation in this sense, but that this is
because of a technical factor; that capital has a marginal productivity.  In
order to see that the reward to capital is a result of social relations
rather than relations between things, you need to get off the fence and make
more definite statements about value.

dd


___
Email Disclaimer

This communication is for the attention of the
named recipient only and should not be passed
on to any other person. Information relating to
any company or security, is for information
purposes only and should not be interpreted as
a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security.
The information on which this communication is based
has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable,
but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
All expressions of opinion are subject to change
without notice.  All e-mail messages, and associated attachments,
are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes.
___

Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Justin Schwartz]

>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
>dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
>terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.

How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated relatoon among 
variables"? The laws of quantum mechanics are as precisely formulated as 
could be, and nondeterministic too. Fallback to "dialectics," though, raises 
my antennae, because it is often an excuse to talk a lot of nonsense. I 
think Marx was genuinely dialectical in a specific Hegelian sense--he 
proceeds by immanent critique, for example--but this isn't a matter of 
giving an alternative to explanation by means of probabalistic laws or 
tendecies, but rather a style of explanation that offers a framework for 
offering lawlike explanations.

>
>BTW, the "laws" of supply & demand are also non-determinist. S&D cannot 
>give
>specific answers to anything in the abstract. Rather, they have to be given
>empirical content. S&D might best be seen as a (an?) heuristic, acting as a
>guide to thought. Of course, Marx's value theory -- or law of value -- is
>also a heuristic.

I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you 
seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina  simple way that 
there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it. jks

_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>Obviously I am in general sympathy with Charles's defence of the LOV
>approach, but I think Justin helpfully pinpoints a line of demarcation. For
>Justin a "law" is a "precisely formulable generalization". Many might agree
>the merits of such an approach, but I am fairly confident that Marx and
>Engels would not.

Why do you think not?

People will have to make a value judgement about
>this.
>

Why is this a value judgment?

>In  Chapter XXV   Section 4 of Vol 1 of Capital Marx states in connection
>with "the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation" "like all other
>laws it is modified in its working by many circumstances, the analysis of
>which does not concern us here."

This doesn't show that Marx rejects the usual formulation of "law," rather, 
he accepts the obvious point that like many purported social laws, it states 
a tendency that is ceteris paribus and probabalistic.

>
>Now it is true that Marx's formulation of the law could still conceivably
>be expressed in a clear relationship of variables despite this
>qualification, but  the qualification suggests to me that Marx expected the
>workings of any serious law to be fuzzy in practice.

Sure. But this is just a fact about social generalizations.
>
>The statement about the "law of value of commodities in Ch XIV  Section
>4  goes on to say "But this constant tendency to equlibirum ... is
>exercised only in the shape of a reaction against the constant upsetting of
>this equilbrium." This to my mind makes it sound much more like a strange
>attractor than a simple equation.

Even a precisely formed law can take a very complex form. A law doesn't have 
to have a simple form.
>
>>
>In the essay [Engels] considers various definitions of the law of value and 
>does
>not insist on only one.

Is that supposed to be a recommendation?

>
>So this is a declaration of philosophical realism - that something has
>emerged in the course of economic history and that a law describing it is
>not a purely logical process but an explanatory reflection in thought of
>that real process.

Social laws, if there are any, are empirical generalizations, not purely 
logical processes.

>
>
>Obviously like Charles I am a believer that there is some such thing as a
>capitalist economy

Me too.

>and that it has a self perpetuating dynamic.

I agree.

>But I suspect that Justin's clearest line of demarcation is in the
>importance of any theory being vulnerable to "testing and criticism". This
>is a standpoint of a philosophical approach that objects to theories like
>those of Freud or Marx on the grounds that they are not falsifiable.

I didn't say that and don't believe it. I think Freud's a fraud as a 
scientist, but Marx is the real think. I think the core of his theories is 
correct.

jks


_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

RE: Re: LOV and LTV

[Devine, James]

Chris B. writes: >Obviously I am in general sympathy with Charles's defence
of the LOV approach, but I think Justin helpfully pinpoints a line of
demarcation. For Justin a "law" is a "precisely formulable generalization".
Many might agree the merits of such an approach, but I am fairly confident
that Marx and Engels would not. People will have to make a value judgement
about this. <

Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist. 

BTW, the "laws" of supply & demand are also non-determinist. S&D cannot give
specific answers to anything in the abstract. Rather, they have to be given
empirical content. S&D might best be seen as a (an?) heuristic, acting as a
guide to thought. Of course, Marx's value theory -- or law of value -- is
also a heuristic.

JDevine