Re: Re: Re: LOV and LTV
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: Re: LOV and LTV
>>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: Re: LOV and LTV
> > 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
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV
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: 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.< > >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
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
>
> >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: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV
- 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
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
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
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
> >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
"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
>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
>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
