RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Devine, James]

 There _is_ a similarity between religious thinking and Marxian thinking,
i.e., there is a "hard core" of concepts and even theories that cannot be
falsified. But scientific thinking says (1) that such concepts should be
clearly identified; (2) their role should be minimized relative to the size
of the corpus of scientific thought. 

Thus, I acknowledge that Marx's law of value is a true-by-definition
accounting framework (an alternative to using prices in accounting) that is
used by Marx to break through the fetishism of commodities and thus to
figure out the basic nature & workings of the capitalist mode of production.
But if people stop with that, it's worthless (except as an absolutely
necessary component in understanding Marx). Thus, my research on value
emphasizes the "utility of value," applying value concepts to address new
questions. 

-- Jim Devine

-Original Message-
From: Ken Hanly
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2/9/02 6:04 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22680] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
Materialism

My "fuzzy" understanding of this is that the hard core of  "tautologies"
nevertheless supports if the theory is progressive a research program
creating theories that are empirically testable and/or useful in
explaining
empirical data. Most religious theories would employ supernatural
entites
such as a deity or deities in explaining events whereas Marxists avoid
use
of such concepts. There is a certain affinity between the tautological
core
concepts of  some aspects of  Marxism and many theological therories in
that
they are not themselves subject to empirical disconfirmation directly. I
suppose just as Candide found that this is the best of all possible
worlds
was not a very positive research project and lose faith in religions
many
think the same of showing the ultimate revolutionary overthrow of
capitalism
by the working class and lose faith in Marxism.
Can't theories have explanatory power interpret events, make sense
of
them, in an illuminating way even though they may not directly predict
precisely what will happen. Religious theories can give meaning to
individual lives by enabling individual to "see" the world in terms of
some
basic conceptions, Marxism can play a similar role in peoples lives.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22358] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
Materialism


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:13 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:22213] Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
> Materialism
>
>
> I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequences
> of
> theories at the level of generality of the theory of value. What if
> the
> labor theory of value is part of the central core of Marxism ? If
> that is so
> then in itself it does not have any specific empirical implications
> period.
> Jim Devine seems to take a position of this sort in a piece on
> the web:
>
> Marx's goals for the LoV were to analyze the societal
>  nature and laws of motion of the capitalism; another way of
>  saying this is that the LoV summarizes the method of analysis
>  that Marx applies in Capital. The LoV is part of what Imre
>  Lakatos [1970] terms the "hard core" of tautologies and
>  simplifying assumptions that is a necessary part of any research
>  program.1 The quantitative aspect of value should be seen as a
>  true-by-definition accounting framework to be used to break
>  through the fetishism of commodities -- allowing the analysis of
>  capitalism as a social system. Prices, the accounting framework
>  most used by economists, both reflect existing social relations
>  and distort their appearance. It is necessary to have an
>  alternative to prices if one wants to understand what is going
>  on behind the level of appearances: looking at what people do
>  in production (i.e., labor, value) helps reveal the social
>  relations between them.
>
> If this interpretation is correct then Quine-Duhem's stuff is
> irrelevant not
> that it makes much sense to me anyway. Seems like a neanderthal
> idea to
> speak of theories implying empirical consequences just like that
> without
> assumptions conditions etc. assumed: or of  "evidence"
> straightforwardly
> supporting a theory. So the Quine-Duhem stuff is not relevant and
> even if it
> were why should it be given any particular weight?  Is  it any less
> dubious
> than the Marxian theory of value?
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> 
>
> Ok but then what's to stop such skepticism creep? What makes any
> theory non-dubious if not observational consequences? This puts of
> lot of theories on the same level as theology, no?
>
> Ian
>

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Ken Hanly]

My "fuzzy" understanding of this is that the hard core of  "tautologies"
nevertheless supports if the theory is progressive a research program
creating theories that are empirically testable and/or useful in explaining
empirical data. Most religious theories would employ supernatural entites
such as a deity or deities in explaining events whereas Marxists avoid use
of such concepts. There is a certain affinity between the tautological core
concepts of  some aspects of  Marxism and many theological therories in that
they are not themselves subject to empirical disconfirmation directly. I
suppose just as Candide found that this is the best of all possible worlds
was not a very positive research project and lose faith in religions many
think the same of showing the ultimate revolutionary overthrow of capitalism
by the working class and lose faith in Marxism.
Can't theories have explanatory power interpret events, make sense of
them, in an illuminating way even though they may not directly predict
precisely what will happen. Religious theories can give meaning to
individual lives by enabling individual to "see" the world in terms of some
basic conceptions, Marxism can play a similar role in peoples lives.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22358] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:13 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:22213] Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
> Materialism
>
>
> I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequences
> of
> theories at the level of generality of the theory of value. What if
> the
> labor theory of value is part of the central core of Marxism ? If
> that is so
> then in itself it does not have any specific empirical implications
> period.
> Jim Devine seems to take a position of this sort in a piece on
> the web:
>
> Marx's goals for the LoV were to analyze the societal
>  nature and laws of motion of the capitalism; another way of
>  saying this is that the LoV summarizes the method of analysis
>  that Marx applies in Capital. The LoV is part of what Imre
>  Lakatos [1970] terms the "hard core" of tautologies and
>  simplifying assumptions that is a necessary part of any research
>  program.1 The quantitative aspect of value should be seen as a
>  true-by-definition accounting framework to be used to break
>  through the fetishism of commodities -- allowing the analysis of
>  capitalism as a social system. Prices, the accounting framework
>  most used by economists, both reflect existing social relations
>  and distort their appearance. It is necessary to have an
>  alternative to prices if one wants to understand what is going
>  on behind the level of appearances: looking at what people do
>  in production (i.e., labor, value) helps reveal the social
>  relations between them.
>
> If this interpretation is correct then Quine-Duhem's stuff is
> irrelevant not
> that it makes much sense to me anyway. Seems like a neanderthal
> idea to
> speak of theories implying empirical consequences just like that
> without
> assumptions conditions etc. assumed: or of  "evidence"
> straightforwardly
> supporting a theory. So the Quine-Duhem stuff is not relevant and
> even if it
> were why should it be given any particular weight?  Is  it any less
> dubious
> than the Marxian theory of value?
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> 
>
> Ok but then what's to stop such skepticism creep? What makes any
> theory non-dubious if not observational consequences? This puts of
> lot of theories on the same level as theology, no?
>
> Ian
>

Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>RB writes: >>Doug thinks Marx was an underconsumptionist; at the same Doug
>subscribes to the wage led profit squeeze thesis.<<
>
>DH writes:> See, this is exactly what I was thinking of when I quoted
>Callari's observation that VT is a substitute for politics. I don't think
>you could ever prove this conclusively one way or the other using numbers.
>But in political terms, it's not the least bit ambiguous - the ruling class
>felt like it was losing control in the 1970s. Workers were sullen and
>rebellious, the U.S. lost the Vietnam War, and the Third World was talking
>about a new world economic order. As Paul McCracken's report for the OECD
>put it (and I wish I could find this exact quote again, it was a beaut),
>anxiety over inflation was inseparable from masses in the streets. The
>rebels were crushed.<
>
>RB wasn't talking about value theory [VT] above. Instead, he's talking about
>a specific crisis theory. That's a different (lower) level of abstraction
>than VT. --JD


thanks for the clarification. here is something from Felton Shortall 
that attempts to integrate the two levels (Jim may be interested in 
this book the Incomplete Marx. Avebury, 1994 because it complements 
Michael Lebowitz's argument re: the missing book on wage labor):

"Of course intra industry competition will tend to depress 
depreciation charges and hence the imputed value of fixed capital. 
But only to a small degree. If capitals were unable to sustain the 
imputed value of their fixed capital no one would risk investing in 
any industrial capital which had significant proportion of fixed 
capital, since if they did they would face the prospect of the 
devaluation of their capital far outweighing any prospective profit. 
With all the capitals in a particular branch of industry in more or 
less the same boat, the formation of the market value will tend to 
impute the industry's average historic value of fixed capital.

"With the preservation of the historic values of fixed capital the 
devaluation of capital due to the increasing social productivity of 
labour becomes deferred. But this gives free play to the effects of 
the rising organic composition of capital on the general rate of 
profit. As capital accumulates on the basis of historic values the 
rate of profit will decline. Sooner or later the critical point is 
reached. Capital has accumulated to such a degreee that it has become 
a barrier to its own self-expansion. Profitable accumulation is at an 
end.

"But this is only on the basis of historic values. If capital was 
evaluated ont eh basis of replacment values, if the deferred 
couneracting effects of rising productivity of labor could be brought 
into play, the rate of profit culd be restored to health and 
profitable accumulation resumed. Indeed this is the way capital is 
able to overcome the falling rate of profit as a barrier to further 
accumulation. Through rupture and crisis the long pent up devaluation 
of capital is released all at once. The old structure of historic 
values are forcibly reduced to that of the new. But this does not 
only mean the simple devaluation of capital, but also its widespread 
destruction; its devalorization, bankruptcy and ruin. " p. 404

Yet Shortall seems to me perhaps too sanguine about the ability of 
rupture and crisis to restore in themselves the profitability of 
capital!

Rakesh

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
>>except that it illuminates what is plain for all to see--the 
>>importance not greater purchasing power as a 'solution' and/or 
>>solution but of the destruction and the devaluation of capital in 
>>the restoration of profitability, accumulation and therefore the 
>>realization of surplus value.
>
>Liquidate liquidate liquidate - this is Mellon and the prophets!
>
>Doug

But even Mellon here belies the optimistic faith, soon to be 
shattered, that society can master its own crises as long as there is 
no political interference with sharp and short downturns.   Yet as 
Adolf Lowe remarked after the world war "the crises intrinsic to the 
capitalist system have lost their virulence; but if we consider an 
international destruction of value like the world war as the modern 
form of crisis in the age of imperialism, and there is much to be 
said for the view, there is little room for extravagant hopes of 
'spontaneous stabilization.'"  Quoted in Mattick, Economic Crisis and 
Crisis Theory, p. 120

Doug, as I understand value theory, there is a prediction of an 
inevitable dialectical proces of disturbances, contradictions, and 
crises--not an absolute, purely economic impossibility of 
accumulation, but a constant alternation between the overcoming of 
crisis and its reproduction at a higher level until the destruction 
of the underlying social relations by the working class or the 
self-emancipation of peanuts.

rb

Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Doug Henwood]

Rakesh Bhandari wrote:

>except that it illuminates what is plain for all to see--the 
>importance not greater purchasing power as a 'solution' and/or 
>solution but of the destruction and the devaluation of capital in 
>the restoration of profitability, accumulation and therefore the 
>realization of surplus value.

Liquidate liquidate liquidate - this is Mellon and the prophets!

Doug

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Doug Henwood]

Carrol Cox wrote:

>It's been a few years since I read your book, but I sort of remember it
>as specifically claiming that Wall Street did NOT allocate investment.

WS doesn't have a large role in funding investment, but firms make 
investments based on what the stock market will like.

Doug

Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Carrol Cox]

I have never thought that the productive/unproductive labor opposition
was important -- but I wonder:

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> Devine, James wrote:
> 
> >But your book is suggesting that all of Wall Street is
> >involved in unproductive labor, Doug.
> 
> But Wall Street is also about arranging the ownership of productive
> assets

This, precisely, is unproductive labor as Marx describes it: labor
iinvolved in the realization and distribution of surplus value.


 and allocating investment.

It's been a few years since I read your book, but I sort of remember it
as specifically claiming that Wall Street did NOT allocate investment.

Carrol
> 
> Doug

Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>  > Charles Brown wrote:
>>  >Isn't value theory a premise of Doug's book ?
>
>Doug writes:
>>  If you mean that workers produce everything of value (in conjunction
>>  with some goods supplied by nature), and that much division and
>>  redivision of the spoils goes on, and that finance can obscure those
>>  fundamentals, yes. If you mean the rest of it - OCC, the
>>  transoformation problem, the distiction between productive and
>>  unproductive labor, etc. - then no. Damn waste of time, I say.
>
>The rising OCC theory seems a waste of time except those specifically
>interested in crisis theory (and the dogmatic version is just a pain, like
>all dogma),


except that it illuminates what is plain for all to see--the 
importance not greater purchasing power as a 'solution' and/or 
solution but of the destruction and the devaluation of capital in the 
restoration of profitability, accumulation and therefore the 
realization of surplus value.

rb

Re: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Doug writes:


>
>>Doug thinks Marx was an underconsumptionist; at the same Doug 
>>subscribes to the wage led profit squeeze thesis.
>
>See, this is exactly what I was thinking of when I quoted Callari's 
>observation that VT is a substitute for politics. I don't think you 
>could ever prove this conclusively one way or the other using 
>numbers.

prove what? problems were surely overcome not by increasing the 
purchasing power of the working class, against your sometimes 
underconsumption theory predicts.



>  But in political terms, it's not the least bit ambiguous - the 
>ruling class felt like it was losing control in the 1970s. Workers 
>were sullen and rebellious,

against rising rates of exploitation or wages not keeping up with 
value of labor power perhaps in part as a result of greater tax 
reductions.


>  the U.S. lost the Vietnam War,

leading to inflationary pressure in the process that threatened workers.


>and the Third World was talking about a new world economic order.

the terms of trade had turned against OPEC in the 60s; the embargo 
was as much a defensive as offensive action.



>  As Paul McCracken's report for the OECD put it (and I wish I could 
>find this exact quote again, it was a beaut), anxiety over inflation 
>was inseparable from masses in the streets. The rebels were crushed.
>
>Doug

Which should have led to a much greater recovery in the profit rate 
than it did if profits/wage ratio was the main independent variable, 
as you imply when you're not focused on the problem of too high a s/v 
realizing in Dept II output for which there is insufficient consumer 
demand.  That the crushing did not lead to a full restoration of 
profitability underlines the importance of the vcc and u/p labor 
ratio which you want to junk.

At any rate, what value theory explains is why this barbaric 
repression of the working class-- as well as the destruction and 
devaluation of capital in part effected by Volcker's 
bankruptcy-inducing high interest regime and regressive tax reform at 
the expense of social darwinist social policy and the turning of the 
terms of trade against raw materials producers-- restored 
profitability (though only in part as Fred M emphasizes) and renewed 
capitalist accumulation (such that it was).

That this is the capitalist way out of crises is explained on the 
basis of the law of value.

Rakesh

Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Doug Henwood]

Devine, James wrote:

>But your book is suggesting that all of Wall Street is
>involved in unproductive labor, Doug.

But Wall Street is also about arranging the ownership of productive 
assets and allocating investment.

Doug

Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22576] RE: Re: Historical Materialism


> > Charles Brown wrote:
> > >Isn't value theory a premise of Doug's book ?
>
> Doug writes:
> > If you mean that workers produce everything of value (in conjunction
> > with some goods supplied by nature), and that much division and
> > redivision of the spoils goes on, and that finance can obscure those
> > fundamentals, yes. If you mean the rest of it - OCC, the
> > transoformation problem, the distiction between productive and
> > unproductive labor, etc. - then no. Damn waste of time, I say.
>
> The rising OCC theory seems a waste of time except those specifically
> interested in crisis theory (and the dogmatic version is just a pain, like
> all dogma), while the Ricardian "transformation problem" (i.e. the
> derivation of mathematical relations between prices and values) seems a
> total distraction. But your book is suggesting that all of Wall Street is
> involved in unproductive labor, Doug.
> Jim D.



I couldn't help but see it as people playing musical chairs with claims on the future 
of production.

Ian

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message - 
From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>






>
>The empirical equivalence thesis is part of Q-D, no? Wasn't meaning
>to suggest it was the whole shebang.

I don't think so. It's verificationist. Q-D is not. jks

===

And Q-D incorporates the EET precisely to show it's limitations lead to the UTE, no?

Time for some Web of Belief tweaking eh?

Ian

Re: Re: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>The empirical equivalence thesis is part of Q-D, no? Wasn't meaning
>to suggest it was the whole shebang.

I don't think so. It's verificationist. Q-D is not. jks

>
>As we've all been remiss in pointing out until now, the most
>powerful critique of Capital -- in the last decade at the very
>least -- makes no use whatsoever of value theory. What is missing
>from that book."Wall Street", that value theory would
>make substantive improvements on?
>

well, we have it from very wise people that you can't begin to understand or 
explain capitalism without value theory, we're stucvk at the level of mere 
ecletic phenomenal static description. Sorry, Doug.

jks

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

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Michael Perelman]

The measurement of the capital stock is in impossibility.  Franklin Fisher
once worked up the requirements for aggregation.  Can't be done!

The inability to calculate real depreciation presents another barrier.

I mentioned this in passing before in questioning how seriously we should
take estimates of profit rates as anything more than a rough rule of
thumb.

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 04:59:36PM -, Davies, Daniel wrote:
> 
> >I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian institutionalist 
> >with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
> 
> Must make for some interesting dinner parties 
> 
> But I don't see how saying "I'm an institutionalist" gets you off the hook
> here.  That's not a value theory, and neither Robinson nor Kalecki have
> either a way of telling us how to measure the capital stock without a value
> theory, or a value theory which is not fundamentally the equivalent of the
> LTV (I accept your point about a glass being half-empty or half full, but
> surely to heavens, any theory which accepts that value is only produced by
> labour is a labour theory of value; I've never understood why Robinson
> claimed that she didn't accept LTV).
> 
> And in the context of capital and value theory , "Austrian" isn't a dash of
> spice; it's arsenic soup.  It's a marginal theory of value, which hangs you
> right back on the hook that you got off with general equilibrium.
> 
> I'm sure I don't understand your position properly, and I bet that reading
> those two papers will help.  But I think it's clear that there are many good
> technical reasons to suppose that economics needs *some* value theory, and
> the labour theory of value shapes up pretty well compared to the
> competition.
> 
> 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.
> ___
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Davies, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:57 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22460] RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism




>>If the main results of the
>>LTV and or the LoV whether in a quantitative-qualitative
>>combination or relying singly on quantitative or qualitative
>>approaches adds nothing to what can be achieved in terms of
>>*explanation* without them, then why shouldn't Ockam's razor
>>apply--to concepts, not entities?

>Quite.

But this is a perfect example of a fallacy of marginalism.  I think
the
strongest anti-LTV/LOV case that you could make in this direction
would be
that LTV/LOV don't "add anything to what can be explained by"
neoclassical
marginal/general equilibrium theory.  But even that would be open
to the
objection that it was also true that NC theory didn't "add
anything" to
LTV/LOV.  It all depends where you start from ...

=
Nah, the big reason we all like Marx vis a vis NC GET etc. is that
he saw Capitalism as a system of power and domination exercised via
money, technology, property etc and that it contradicts everything
we think we know about freedom, co-operation, beneficence and other
human traits that make us potentially different from crocodiles.


And in any case, LTV has the considerable technical merit over NC
theory
that it offers a non-circular method to measure the capital stock.
It also
gives some hope of an explanation of the empirical fact that
increases in
productivity do not, in general, lead to a shortening of the
working day,
which would be a prediction of utility theory given any sensible
assumption
about preferences regarding leisure.

dd

=
As Blaug and others have pointed out, the LTV has circularities of
it's own.

Ian

Re: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:48 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22458] Re: Re: Historical Materialism


>Q-D underdetermination asserts that if two theories are equivalent
>in their empirical entailments then some other criteria needs to
be
>used to compare explanatory virtues etc.

No, that's Q's empirical equivalence thesis. The Q-D thesis just
holds that
theories are interconnected networks of propositions, and you can
hold true
any one of them (even in the face of empirical "refutation") by
making
appropriate adjustmemnts elsewhere.



The empirical equivalence thesis is part of Q-D, no? Wasn't meaning
to suggest it was the whole shebang.

As we've all been remiss in pointing out until now, the most
powerful critique of Capital -- in the last decade at the very
least -- makes no use whatsoever of value theory. What is missing
from that book."Wall Street", that value theory would
make substantive improvements on?

Ian

"Few economists pay much attention to corporations, or how they're
owned and run" [DH]

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>>>  >I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian 
>>>institutionalist
>>>  >with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
>
>In her essay on Marxian economics, Joan Robinson attempts to point
>Marx's crisis theory in the direction of the kind of
>underconsumptionism that Sweezy was developing and Devine would later
>elaborate. You should understand that Brenner is a forceful critic of
>such underconsumptionism. So what it is that you are saying, Justin,
>is really not quite clear at all.
>

No doubt I am unclear. However, it is possible to accept some of an author's 
views without accepting all of them. I urge this in the case of Robinsin, 
marx, and Brenner. jks


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

Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>>  >I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian institutionalist
>>  >with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.

In her essay on Marxian economics, Joan Robinson attempts to point 
Marx's crisis theory in the direction of the kind of 
underconsumptionism that Sweezy was developing and Devine would later 
elaborate. You should understand that Brenner is a forceful critic of 
such underconsumptionism. So what it is that you are saying, Justin, 
is really not quite clear at all.

rb

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>
> >I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian 
>institutionalist
> >with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
>
>Must make for some interesting dinner parties 
>
>But I don't see how saying "I'm an institutionalist" gets you off the hook
>here.  That's not a value theory, and neither Robinson nor Kalecki have
>either a way of telling us how to measure the capital stock without a value
>theory, or a value theory which is not fundamentally the equivalent of the
>LTV (I accept your point about a glass being half-empty or half full, but
>surely to heavens, any theory which accepts that value is only produced by
>labour is a labour theory of value; I've never understood why Robinson
>claimed that she didn't accept LTV).

I haven't worked it out--I'm not an economist, and I'm not even an academic 
any more, I'm just a lawyer--but I have a sketch of a two-factor theory, 
recognizing labor contribution and demand as dual sources of value.

>
>And in the context of capital and value theory , "Austrian" isn't a dash of
>spice; it's arsenic soup.  It's a marginal theory of value, which hangs you
>right back on the hook that you got off with general equilibrium.

No, no. It's institutionalist and realistic.

>
>I'm sure I don't understand your position properly, and I bet that reading
>those two papers will help.

Maybe. They onlya ddress VT by the by, WWWE is more on point.

But I think it's clear that there are many good
>technical reasons to suppose that economics needs *some* value theory, and
>the labour theory of value shapes up pretty well compared to the
>competition.

Humnph.

jks

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

RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Davies, Daniel]

>I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian institutionalist 
>with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.

Must make for some interesting dinner parties 

But I don't see how saying "I'm an institutionalist" gets you off the hook
here.  That's not a value theory, and neither Robinson nor Kalecki have
either a way of telling us how to measure the capital stock without a value
theory, or a value theory which is not fundamentally the equivalent of the
LTV (I accept your point about a glass being half-empty or half full, but
surely to heavens, any theory which accepts that value is only produced by
labour is a labour theory of value; I've never understood why Robinson
claimed that she didn't accept LTV).

And in the context of capital and value theory , "Austrian" isn't a dash of
spice; it's arsenic soup.  It's a marginal theory of value, which hangs you
right back on the hook that you got off with general equilibrium.

I'm sure I don't understand your position properly, and I bet that reading
those two papers will help.  But I think it's clear that there are many good
technical reasons to suppose that economics needs *some* value theory, and
the labour theory of value shapes up pretty well compared to the
competition.

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: Historical Materialism

[Justin Schwartz]

>But this is a perfect example of a fallacy of marginalism.  I think the
>strongest anti-LTV/LOV case that you could make in this direction would be
>that LTV/LOV don't "add anything to what can be explained by" neoclassical
>marginal/general equilibrium theory.

I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian institutionalist 
with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.

But even that would be open to the
>objection that it was also true that NC theory didn't "add anything" to
>LTV/LOV.  It all depends where you start from ...

No, I think the LTV fails on its own terms. We do not have empirically 
equivalent theories. We have a theory that points us in the direction of 
some good expalantions that can be stated with its apparatus.

>
>And in any case, LTV has the considerable technical merit over NC theory

No doubt. That's not the only alternative.

jks

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

RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Davies, Daniel]

>>If the main results of the
>>LTV and or the LoV whether in a quantitative-qualitative
>>combination or relying singly on quantitative or qualitative
>>approaches adds nothing to what can be achieved in terms of
>>*explanation* without them, then why shouldn't Ockam's razor
>>apply--to concepts, not entities?

>Quite.

But this is a perfect example of a fallacy of marginalism.  I think the
strongest anti-LTV/LOV case that you could make in this direction would be
that LTV/LOV don't "add anything to what can be explained by" neoclassical
marginal/general equilibrium theory.  But even that would be open to the
objection that it was also true that NC theory didn't "add anything" to
LTV/LOV.  It all depends where you start from ...

And in any case, LTV has the considerable technical merit over NC theory
that it offers a non-circular method to measure the capital stock.  It also
gives some hope of an explanation of the empirical fact that increases in
productivity do not, in general, lead to a shortening of the working day,
which would be a prediction of utility theory given any sensible assumption
about preferences regarding leisure.

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: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:13 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22213] Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
Materialism


I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequences
of
theories at the level of generality of the theory of value. What if
the
labor theory of value is part of the central core of Marxism ? If
that is so
then in itself it does not have any specific empirical implications
period.
Jim Devine seems to take a position of this sort in a piece on
the web:

Marx's goals for the LoV were to analyze the societal
 nature and laws of motion of the capitalism; another way of
 saying this is that the LoV summarizes the method of analysis
 that Marx applies in Capital. The LoV is part of what Imre
 Lakatos [1970] terms the "hard core" of tautologies and
 simplifying assumptions that is a necessary part of any research
 program.1 The quantitative aspect of value should be seen as a
 true-by-definition accounting framework to be used to break
 through the fetishism of commodities -- allowing the analysis of
 capitalism as a social system. Prices, the accounting framework
 most used by economists, both reflect existing social relations
 and distort their appearance. It is necessary to have an
 alternative to prices if one wants to understand what is going
 on behind the level of appearances: looking at what people do
 in production (i.e., labor, value) helps reveal the social
 relations between them.

If this interpretation is correct then Quine-Duhem's stuff is
irrelevant not
that it makes much sense to me anyway. Seems like a neanderthal
idea to
speak of theories implying empirical consequences just like that
without
assumptions conditions etc. assumed: or of  "evidence"
straightforwardly
supporting a theory. So the Quine-Duhem stuff is not relevant and
even if it
were why should it be given any particular weight?  Is  it any less
dubious
than the Marxian theory of value?

Cheers, Ken Hanly



Ok but then what's to stop such skepticism creep? What makes any
theory non-dubious if not observational consequences? This puts of
lot of theories on the same level as theology, no?

Ian

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Michael Perelman]

For a terrific study of the relation between economic sybernetics and
modern economics, see Mirowski's new book, Machine Dreams.

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 03:25:17PM -, Davies, Daniel wrote:
> Well this is in Ellman's book which you recommended earlier ("Soviet
> Planning Today").  It's the difference between "economic cybernetics" and
> "political economy" as set out by the Central Economic Mathematical
> Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences.  The first of these is what you
> learn in business school -- operations research, etc, etc and, as
> Kantorovich et al proved, can in general be derived without making any
> assumptions about values or preferences, as the outcome of a maximisation
> problem in control engineering.
> 
> The second of these is what you have to learn to parrot in the approved
> manner, or you won't be allowed into business school.  It's the question of
> what kind of thing goes into your model; whether you're going to assume that
> wage labour is a cost to be minimised, and whether you're going to measure
> your output by reference to monotonic, independent, transitive etc utility
> functions.  
> 
> The confusion between cybernetics and political economy (economics as
> engineering and economics as politics) is responsible for a lot of problems
> on both sides of (for example) the planning debate (Stalin was of the
> opinion that cybernetics was intrinsically bourgeois and beleived that plans
> should be made on the basis of purely political-economy considerations, with
> predictably disastrous consequences), and the issues dealt with in value
> theory economics are right on the cusp of the two approaches.  But I
> disagree with you that Marx didn't think that the LTV was basically a
> statement about political economy (in the sense used above) and think that
> those people are correct who believe that to confine the importance of the
> LTV to technical discussions about the production and allocation of goods
> under capitalism is to reduce Marx to the status of a "minor Ricardian".
> 
> cheers
> 
> dd
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:22310] Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism
> 
> 
> Well, you know better than I. But they don't teach marxian value theory 
> either, and the USSR's early attempt to use what it thought was that theory 
> as a planning tool was a disaster. So, anyway, maybe if Daniel was right, we
> 
> don't need a value theory at all. jks
> 
> >
> > >Oskar Lange used say that Marxian economics is the economics of 
> >capitalism
> > >and neoclassical economics is the economics of socialism. If you want to 
> >do
> >
> > >monetary and fiscal policy, design an antitrust regime, figure out the
> > >impact of opening new oilfields on existing transportation options, make 
> >a
> > >plan for your own enterprise, you use subjectivist theory. They teach it 
> >in
> >
> > >B school cause it works in short and medium term. I don't have to prove 
> >it:
> >
> > >the proof is in the practice.
> >
> >I don't agree with this, and I've been to business school.  The 
> >subjectivist
> >value theory of neoclassical economics is the von Neumann/Morgenstern
> >axioms, and they are completely orthogonal to the economics you learn at
> >business school (you learn them quite thoroughly in an economics degree, 
> >but
> >that's not the same thing).  At business school, you learn in detail the
> >parts of economics which are not dependent on a value theory and are more
> >properly part of what one used to call "operations research", plus you 
> >learn
> >a bit of kiddies' (often surprisingly heterodox) macroeconomics under the
> >title of "International Financial System" or some such.
> >
> >Think about it this way; almost the only module which is compulsory in 
> >every
> >MBA at every business school is Marketing, and there is still, after about
> >150 years of trying, no decent classical or neoclassical theory of the
> >advertising industry.  Subjectivist value theory is honoured much more in
> >the ignoring than the observance.
> >
> >dd
> >
> >
> >___
> >Email Disclaimer
> >
> >This communication is for the attention of the
> >named recipient only and should not be passed
>

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>Justin, you keep reminding us of Oskar Lange's economics of socialism
>quote.  He thought that General Equilibrium was a proof of the efficacy of
>market socialism.  I don't want to debate market socialism -- we have
>worked that one over more than enough -- but his "proof" seems kind of
>silly to me.

(a) He did not. This is a common myth. In The Economic Theory of Socialism 
defended central planning by shadow pricing. Later, after experiences as an 
actual planner, he became an advocate of market reform, but not via GET.

(b) I don't endorse Lange's use of GET even in defense of planning by using 
his quip, which is just too good to let go. If I quote Tocqueville or 
Churchill or Machiavelli or Goering or even Perlman for an especially apt 
remark, I do not thereby buy into their total potical philosophies. I do not 
confine myself to quotinf only people I agree with, or I would never quote 
anyone.

(c) Anyway, you know, or should by now, that ich bin ein echt Oesterreicher 
on these matters, not a Arrovian-Debreauvnik. I go with the Hayekian 
critique of GET. So you have to take the commebt in the spirit in which it 
was quoted, which is not for its literal truth. Chhez, you marxists are so 
humorless.

Was looking at your Invention of Capitalism in the bookstore the other day, 
looks good, ; I will buy it, but right now I'm busy with other things.

jks

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

RE: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Devine, James]

JKS writes:>Well, you know better than I. But they don't teach marxian value
theory either, and the USSR's early attempt to use what it thought was that
theory as a planning tool was a disaster. So, anyway, maybe if Daniel was
right, we don't need a value theory at all.<

1. The fact that they don't teach Marx's law of value in business school
should be seen as evidence of its validity. After all, in Marx's theory,
business people's ideology -- what BBAs and MBAs learn -- would be the most
distorted by commodity fetishism (the illusions created by competition). 

2. I've seen nothing in Marx that suggests that the law of value can or
should be used as a planning method. (Where _does_ this idea come from?) In
fact, it was extremely controversial when Stalin said that the so-called
"labor theory of value" applied under what he called socialism, since some
said (correctly) that value was a concept of commodity production, not of a
system that was supposed to be producing for use, not exchange. (BTW,
cybernetics in this context seems a perfect tool for techno-bureaucratic
rule, as opposed to Stalin's rule by the party machine.) 

3. Charlie Andrews' interesting FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY includes a
version of law of value in his first stage of socialism: he has
not-for-profit organizations competing in socially-controlled markets, so
that (all else equal) prices tend toward values rather than toward prices of
production (as under capitalism). Of course, he doesn't get bogged down in
this first stage and allows for openings to move toward a higher stage of
socialism.

Jim Devine

RE: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Davies, Daniel]

Well this is in Ellman's book which you recommended earlier ("Soviet
Planning Today").  It's the difference between "economic cybernetics" and
"political economy" as set out by the Central Economic Mathematical
Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences.  The first of these is what you
learn in business school -- operations research, etc, etc and, as
Kantorovich et al proved, can in general be derived without making any
assumptions about values or preferences, as the outcome of a maximisation
problem in control engineering.

The second of these is what you have to learn to parrot in the approved
manner, or you won't be allowed into business school.  It's the question of
what kind of thing goes into your model; whether you're going to assume that
wage labour is a cost to be minimised, and whether you're going to measure
your output by reference to monotonic, independent, transitive etc utility
functions.  

The confusion between cybernetics and political economy (economics as
engineering and economics as politics) is responsible for a lot of problems
on both sides of (for example) the planning debate (Stalin was of the
opinion that cybernetics was intrinsically bourgeois and beleived that plans
should be made on the basis of purely political-economy considerations, with
predictably disastrous consequences), and the issues dealt with in value
theory economics are right on the cusp of the two approaches.  But I
disagree with you that Marx didn't think that the LTV was basically a
statement about political economy (in the sense used above) and think that
those people are correct who believe that to confine the importance of the
LTV to technical discussions about the production and allocation of goods
under capitalism is to reduce Marx to the status of a "minor Ricardian".

cheers

dd

-Original Message-
From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 February 2002 15:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:22310] Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism


Well, you know better than I. But they don't teach marxian value theory 
either, and the USSR's early attempt to use what it thought was that theory 
as a planning tool was a disaster. So, anyway, maybe if Daniel was right, we

don't need a value theory at all. jks

>
> >Oskar Lange used say that Marxian economics is the economics of 
>capitalism
> >and neoclassical economics is the economics of socialism. If you want to 
>do
>
> >monetary and fiscal policy, design an antitrust regime, figure out the
> >impact of opening new oilfields on existing transportation options, make 
>a
> >plan for your own enterprise, you use subjectivist theory. They teach it 
>in
>
> >B school cause it works in short and medium term. I don't have to prove 
>it:
>
> >the proof is in the practice.
>
>I don't agree with this, and I've been to business school.  The 
>subjectivist
>value theory of neoclassical economics is the von Neumann/Morgenstern
>axioms, and they are completely orthogonal to the economics you learn at
>business school (you learn them quite thoroughly in an economics degree, 
>but
>that's not the same thing).  At business school, you learn in detail the
>parts of economics which are not dependent on a value theory and are more
>properly part of what one used to call "operations research", plus you 
>learn
>a bit of kiddies' (often surprisingly heterodox) macroeconomics under the
>title of "International Financial System" or some such.
>
>Think about it this way; almost the only module which is compulsory in 
>every
>MBA at every business school is Marketing, and there is still, after about
>150 years of trying, no decent classical or neoclassical theory of the
>advertising industry.  Subjectivist value theory is honoured much more in
>the ignoring than the observance.
>
>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.
>___
>


_
Get your FREE download 

Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Michael Perelman]

Justin, you keep reminding us of Oskar Lange's economics of socialism
quote.  He thought that General Equilibrium was a proof of the efficacy of
market socialism.  I don't want to debate market socialism -- we have
worked that one over more than enough -- but his "proof" seems kind of
silly to me.

Phil Mirowski does a great job in his new book of showing how this
approach easily slid into planning for the Pentagon by his disciples.

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 03:10:37PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> Well, you know better than I. But they don't teach marxian value theory 
> either, and the USSR's early attempt to use what it thought was that theory 
> as a planning tool was a disaster. So, anyway, maybe if Daniel was right, we 
> don't need a value theory at all. jks
> 
> >
> > >Oskar Lange used say that Marxian economics is the economics of 
> >capitalism
> > >and neoclassical economics is the economics of socialism. If you want to 
> >do
> >
> > >monetary and fiscal policy, design an antitrust regime, figure out the
> > >impact of opening new oilfields on existing transportation options, make 
> >a
> > >plan for your own enterprise, you use subjectivist theory. They teach it 
> >in
> >
> > >B school cause it works in short and medium term. I don't have to prove 
> >it:
> >
> > >the proof is in the practice.
> >
> >I don't agree with this, and I've been to business school.  The 
> >subjectivist
> >value theory of neoclassical economics is the von Neumann/Morgenstern
> >axioms, and they are completely orthogonal to the economics you learn at
> >business school (you learn them quite thoroughly in an economics degree, 
> >but
> >that's not the same thing).  At business school, you learn in detail the
> >parts of economics which are not dependent on a value theory and are more
> >properly part of what one used to call "operations research", plus you 
> >learn
> >a bit of kiddies' (often surprisingly heterodox) macroeconomics under the
> >title of "International Financial System" or some such.
> >
> >Think about it this way; almost the only module which is compulsory in 
> >every
> >MBA at every business school is Marketing, and there is still, after about
> >150 years of trying, no decent classical or neoclassical theory of the
> >advertising industry.  Subjectivist value theory is honoured much more in
> >the ignoring than the observance.
> >
> >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.
> >___
> >
> 
> 
> _
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism

[Justin Schwartz]

Well, you know better than I. But they don't teach marxian value theory 
either, and the USSR's early attempt to use what it thought was that theory 
as a planning tool was a disaster. So, anyway, maybe if Daniel was right, we 
don't need a value theory at all. jks

>
> >Oskar Lange used say that Marxian economics is the economics of 
>capitalism
> >and neoclassical economics is the economics of socialism. If you want to 
>do
>
> >monetary and fiscal policy, design an antitrust regime, figure out the
> >impact of opening new oilfields on existing transportation options, make 
>a
> >plan for your own enterprise, you use subjectivist theory. They teach it 
>in
>
> >B school cause it works in short and medium term. I don't have to prove 
>it:
>
> >the proof is in the practice.
>
>I don't agree with this, and I've been to business school.  The 
>subjectivist
>value theory of neoclassical economics is the von Neumann/Morgenstern
>axioms, and they are completely orthogonal to the economics you learn at
>business school (you learn them quite thoroughly in an economics degree, 
>but
>that's not the same thing).  At business school, you learn in detail the
>parts of economics which are not dependent on a value theory and are more
>properly part of what one used to call "operations research", plus you 
>learn
>a bit of kiddies' (often surprisingly heterodox) macroeconomics under the
>title of "International Financial System" or some such.
>
>Think about it this way; almost the only module which is compulsory in 
>every
>MBA at every business school is Marketing, and there is still, after about
>150 years of trying, no decent classical or neoclassical theory of the
>advertising industry.  Subjectivist value theory is honoured much more in
>the ignoring than the observance.
>
>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.
>___
>


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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>I don't think that your example is quite correct although I understand your
>point. A hand-assembled Toyota would most likely be regarded as "superior",
>command a higher price and represent a greater value than the Toyota that
>was mass produced using a great deal of automation.

My example assumes that the finished products are identical, or near enough. 
There are real world examples all the time, such as with the machine looms 
that laid waste to the handlooms of India and England. The hand looms took 
longer to make the same cloth, but the value of the product dropped 
preciptously, because the extra time was no longer socially necessary.

> But assuming they did have the same value then you are correct the 
>value
>or abstract socially necessary labor in both would be the same. However, I
>dont see how this counters my point. Let us say that Sam who hand builds
>Toyota's has to work twice as long as Sally who is in the automated factory
>to embody the same value i.e.abstract socially necessary labor time. 
>Doesn't
>it follow that Sam's labor power is not equal in value to that of Sally?

This is not a well-formed question. The value of labor power is the wage 
necesasry to reproduce the worker, not the amount of time he must work to 
produce the product. You confuse here the value of the product with the 
value of the producer's labor time. The value of the product is a certain 
amount (the socially necessary part) of the labor time necessary to produce 
the commodity.


>That is my point and it does seem to follow from the theory as far as I can
>see. A capitalist is not going to buy any Sam labor power when Sally labor
>power produces value at twice the rate of Sam.

Quite right. Ask the hand loom weavers. So what's your point?

jks



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

Re: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Rakesh Bhandari]

>Jim writes:
>
>>
>>
>>(2) no, Marx shows convincingly in volume III of CAPITAL that as long as (1)
>>the rate of surplus-value is constant and uncorrelated with the OCC; (2) the
>>OCC differs between industries; and (3) the rate of profit tends toward
>>equality between sectors, prices gravitate toward prices of production
>>(POPs) that differ from values. Maybe you're thinking of Ricardo, who saw
>>exactly this kind of result from his analysis but assumed that the value/POP
>>correlation was "good enough for early 19th century British political
>>economy work" (embracing what historians of economic thought call the 98%
>>labor theory of value [i.e., of price]). For Marx, the connection between
>>prices and values is macroeconomic in nature, with total value = total price
>>and total surplus-value = total property income, with the macro structure of
>>accumulation limiting and shaping the microprocesses that make up that
>>totality. (Charlie Andrews' recent book, FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY, is
>>good on this.)
>
>
>I agree with the focus on totality here. but it is a peculiar focus, 
>and I am going to make an outlandish guess as to why.

I just want to add a simple point here which echoes Yoshie's point 
from the capitalist point of view, and I think it says better what I 
was trying to say very early this morning.  For Marx, only once one 
has discoverd the average rate of profit for capital-as-a-whole can 
one discover the limits to the profit that any one capitalist can 
make. No matter whether an individual capitalist beats off the fall 
in the average rate of profit at the expense of other capitals, the 
fall in the average rate for the capitalist class can plunge the 
system into the crisis. As GA Cohen may put it: that the only a few 
can fit through the escape door (micro) before it shuts can only be 
clarified by understanding the situation of the capitalist class 
itself (macro). Despite the strictures of methodological 
individualism, it seems to me quite precisely accurate to speak of 
the fate of the supra-individual entity of capital, which again is 
itself a concrete individual unlike say a generalized concreted 
abstraction like boats-as-a-whole (row boats, aircraft carriers, 
tugboats).

rb

Re: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[miyachi]

on 2/2/02 07:55 PM, Rakesh Bhandari at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Jim writes:
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> (2) no, Marx shows convincingly in volume III of CAPITAL that as long as (1)
>> the rate of surplus-value is constant and uncorrelated with the OCC; (2) the
>> OCC differs between industries; and (3) the rate of profit tends toward
>> equality between sectors, prices gravitate toward prices of production
>> (POPs) that differ from values. Maybe you're thinking of Ricardo, who saw
>> exactly this kind of result from his analysis but assumed that the value/POP
>> correlation was "good enough for early 19th century British political
>> economy work" (embracing what historians of economic thought call the 98%
>> labor theory of value [i.e., of price]). For Marx, the connection between
>> prices and values is macroeconomic in nature, with total value = total price
>> and total surplus-value = total property income, with the macro structure of
>> accumulation limiting and shaping the microprocesses that make up that
>> totality. (Charlie Andrews' recent book, FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY, is
>> good on this.)
> 
> 
> I agree with the focus on totality here. but it is a peculiar focus,
> and I am going to make an outlandish guess as to why.
> 
> By vol 3, Marx is nearing his descent to the concrete totality, yet
> Marx seems not interested in *individual* capitals even as he
> approaches them because any one individual capital does not yield--as
> a result of the variance in compositions--surplus value at the same
> rate as would the *typical particular* capitalist (that is, the
> prototype of or a perfect aliquot of the whole class; Meek links
> Marx's typical particular of a capital of average composition to
> Sraffa's standard commodity).
> 
> In vol 3 Marx remains more interested in total surplus value produced
> by all the individual capitals, and it is only in terms of
> capital-as-a-whole that the total mass of surplus value can be
> defined, and the average rate of profit determined.
> Capital-as-a-whole is thus revealed to be itself a concrete unit with
> its own specific attributes.
> 
> So even as Marx comes to appreciate fully individuality, as opposed
> to typical particularity, in the multiplicity of capitals, he is not
> ultimately interested in the the multiplicity or aggregate of
> individual capitals but with the concrete individual that is itself
> capital as a whole.
> 
> Itself a concrete individual, capital-as-a-whole is thus not like
> say boats-as-a whole which is merely a *generalized concrete
> abstraction* for small open craft, ocean liners, battleships and and
> exchange carriers.
> 
> In this latter case the members are of course more concrete than the
> abstract class.
> 
> But in the case of capital-as-a-whole, the class itself has been
> concretized in that it alone has attributes that its members, as
> individuals *abstracted* from that class, do not.
> 
> The capitalist *class* is not a not a mere plurality of capitals; it
> is itself a fairly concrete unit.
> 
> I do not think we have here a  fallacy of misplaced concreteness or
> an error of hypostatizing.
> 
> Though I do not know whether I am making sense either.
> 
> 
> And it may be that the fault should be put on capitalist social
> relations, not those social scientists who reject methodological
> individualism which seems only to accord concreteness to members, not
> classes. Such a stricture may be illsuited for the very society that
> produces the standpoint of the individualist.
> 
> rakesh
> SIr Rakesh Bhandari
> 
> In "Capital" Marx distinguish buyer-seller relation from class relation
Below is this. True, in the act M---L the owner of money and the owner of
labour-power enter only into the relation of buyer and seller, confront one
another only as money-owner and commodity-owner. In this respect they enter
merely into a money-relation. Yet at the same time the buyer appears also
from the outset in the capacity of an owner of means of production, which
are the material conditions for the productive expenditure of labour-power
by its owner. In other words, these means of production are in opposition to
the owner of the labour-power, being property of another. On the other hand
the seller of labour faces its buyer as labour-power of another which must
be made to do his bidding, must be integrated into his capital, in order
that it may really become productive capital. The class relation between
capitalist and wage-laborer therefore exists, is presupposed from the moment
the two face each other in the act M---L (L---M on the part of the laborer).
It is a purchase and sale, a money-relation, but a purchase and sale in
which the buyer is assumed to be a capitalist and the seller a wage-laborer.
And this relation arises out of the fact that the conditions required for
the realisation of labour-power, viz., means of subsistence and means of
production, are separated from the owner of labour-power, being the property
of another. 

RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Devine, James]

thanks. I needed that. -- Jim Devine 

Ken Hanly writes: 
I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequences of
theories at the level of generality of the theory of value. What if the
labor theory of value is part of the central core of Marxism ? If that
is so then in itself it does not have any specific empirical implications
period.

Jim Devine seems to take a position of this sort in a piece on the
web:

Marx's goals for the LoV were to analyze the societal
 nature and laws of motion of the capitalism; another way of
 saying this is that the LoV summarizes the method of analysis
 that Marx applies in Capital. The LoV is part of what Imre
 Lakatos [1970] terms the "hard core" of tautologies and
 simplifying assumptions that is a necessary part of any research
 program.1 The quantitative aspect of value should be seen as a
 true-by-definition accounting framework to be used to break
 through the fetishism of commodities -- allowing the analysis of
 capitalism as a social system. Prices, the accounting framework
 most used by economists, both reflect existing social relations
 and distort their appearance. It is necessary to have an
 alternative to prices if one wants to understand what is going
 on behind the level of appearances: looking at what people do
 in production (i.e., labor, value) helps reveal the social
 relations between them.

If this interpretation is correct then Quine-Duhem's stuff is irrelevant
not that it makes much sense to me anyway. Seems like a neanderthal idea to
speak of theories implying empirical consequences just like that without
assumptions conditions etc. assumed: or of  "evidence" straightforwardly
supporting a theory. So the Quine-Duhem stuff is not relevant and even
if it
were why should it be given any particular weight?  Is  it any less
dubious
than the Marxian theory of value?

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22192] Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:11 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:22191] RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism
>
>
> Ian quotes Joan Robinson:
> > "The awkwardness of reckoning in terms of values, while
> commodities
> > and labor power are constantly changing in values, accounts for
> > much of the obscurity of Marx's exposition, and none of the
> > important ideas he expresses in terms of the conceptof value
> cannot
> > be better expressed without it."
>
> I don't think the obscurity of Marx's writing (which is supposed to
> be
> pretty easy to read as German theoretical writing goes) is due to
> his use of
> values. Instead it's because he doesn't do what modern writers do,
> i.e., say
> "this is what I'm going to say first; then I'll talk about this,
> etc.,"
> explaining the level of abstraction and stuff like that (i.e.
> assumptions)
> at each stage. Instead he plays at being Hegel and starts out very
> abstract
> (the Commodity in General) and becomes progressively more concrete
> without
> explaining the logic of his presentation (even though his analysis
> does make
> sense). (Charlie Andrews' recent book follows Marx on value theory,
> but has
> a much better presentation.)
>
> > "As a logical process, the ratio of profits to wages for each
> > individual commodity, can be calculated when the rate of profit
> is
> > known. The transformation is from prices into values, not the
> other
> > way."
>
> this is what's been called the Steedman critique, though obviously
> Robinson
> thought of it first. It's at the center of Analytic Marxism. I
> think it's
> based on a misunderstanding of Marx's project, the facile
> assumption that
> Marx was a minor post-Ricardian who was first and foremost
> interested in
> price theory and distribution theory.
>
> Jim Devine
>
> 
>
> Ok, but given the Quine-Duhem underdetermination problem-link
> below-is not the burden of proof for the indispensability of Marx's
> value theory on those who wish to retain it? Steve Fleetwood has an
> essay on this in a recent issue of Capital & Class.
>
> Ian
>
>
> **
> UNDERDETERMINATION
>
> Empirical equivalence
>
> Two theories T1 and T2 are empirically equivalent if every
> observational consequence of T1 is also an observational
> consequence of T2.
>
> e.g. curved space-time vs.
> flat space-time plus forces
>
> sol

Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Jim writes:


>
>
>(2) no, Marx shows convincingly in volume III of CAPITAL that as long as (1)
>the rate of surplus-value is constant and uncorrelated with the OCC; (2) the
>OCC differs between industries; and (3) the rate of profit tends toward
>equality between sectors, prices gravitate toward prices of production
>(POPs) that differ from values. Maybe you're thinking of Ricardo, who saw
>exactly this kind of result from his analysis but assumed that the value/POP
>correlation was "good enough for early 19th century British political
>economy work" (embracing what historians of economic thought call the 98%
>labor theory of value [i.e., of price]). For Marx, the connection between
>prices and values is macroeconomic in nature, with total value = total price
>and total surplus-value = total property income, with the macro structure of
>accumulation limiting and shaping the microprocesses that make up that
>totality. (Charlie Andrews' recent book, FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY, is
>good on this.)


I agree with the focus on totality here. but it is a peculiar focus, 
and I am going to make an outlandish guess as to why.

By vol 3, Marx is nearing his descent to the concrete totality, yet 
Marx seems not interested in *individual* capitals even as he 
approaches them because any one individual capital does not yield--as 
a result of the variance in compositions--surplus value at the same 
rate as would the *typical particular* capitalist (that is, the 
prototype of or a perfect aliquot of the whole class; Meek links 
Marx's typical particular of a capital of average composition to 
Sraffa's standard commodity).

In vol 3 Marx remains more interested in total surplus value produced 
by all the individual capitals, and it is only in terms of 
capital-as-a-whole that the total mass of surplus value can be 
defined, and the average rate of profit determined. 
Capital-as-a-whole is thus revealed to be itself a concrete unit with 
its own specific attributes.

So even as Marx comes to appreciate fully individuality, as opposed 
to typical particularity, in the multiplicity of capitals, he is not 
ultimately interested in the the multiplicity or aggregate of 
individual capitals but with the concrete individual that is itself 
capital as a whole.

Itself a concrete individual, capital-as-a-whole is thus not like 
say boats-as-a whole which is merely a *generalized concrete 
abstraction* for small open craft, ocean liners, battleships and and 
exchange carriers.

In this latter case the members are of course more concrete than the 
abstract class.

But in the case of capital-as-a-whole, the class itself has been 
concretized in that it alone has attributes that its members, as 
individuals *abstracted* from that class, do not.

The capitalist *class* is not a not a mere plurality of capitals; it 
is itself a fairly concrete unit.

I do not think we have here a  fallacy of misplaced concreteness or 
an error of hypostatizing.

Though I do not know whether I am making sense either.


And it may be that the fault should be put on capitalist social 
relations, not those social scientists who reject methodological 
individualism which seems only to accord concreteness to members, not 
classes. Such a stricture may be illsuited for the very society that 
produces the standpoint of the individualist.

rakesh

Re: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Ken Hanly]

I don't think that your example is quite correct although I understand your
point. A hand-assembled Toyota would most likely be regarded as "superior",
command a higher price and represent a greater value than the Toyota that
was mass produced using a great deal of automation.
But assuming they did have the same value then you are correct the value
or abstract socially necessary labor in both would be the same. However, I
dont see how this counters my point. Let us say that Sam who hand builds
Toyota's has to work twice as long as Sally who is in the automated factory
to embody the same value i.e.abstract socially necessary labor time. Doesn't
it follow that Sam's labor power is not equal in value to that of Sally?
That is my point and it does seem to follow from the theory as far as I can
see. A capitalist is not going to buy any Sam labor power when Sally labor
power produces value at twice the rate of Sam. But maybe I don't understand
what you are saying. Much of this is over my head.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:09 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22211] Re: Re: Historical Materialism





>
>But SNALT implies that an hour of A's labor may not at all produce the same
>exchange value as an hour of B's labor. If the SN labor time to produce X
>widgets is one hour and A's labor does that  but B's labor only produces
>half that number then in this context an hour of A's labor and of B's are
>not equal. No? The labor theory of value implies that the same hour of
>labor
>of different people is unequal qua its exchange value creation, not that
>each person's hour of labor produces equal value.
>
>

Ken, you are leaving the "abstractness" and the "social necessity" of the
labor out of SNALT. A hand-built Toyota contains excatly the same amount of
ABSTRACT labor time that is socially necessary as a factory built one,
although it takes much longer to make it, because from a social pov theextr
atime is socially unnecessay and the labor involved is abstract or simple,
unskilled labor.

jks



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

Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Ken Hanly]

I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequences of
theories at the level of generality of the theory of value. What if the
labor theory of value is part of the central core of Marxism ? If that is so
then in itself it does not have any specific empirical implications
period.
Jim Devine seems to take a position of this sort in a piece on the web:

Marx's goals for the LoV were to analyze the societal
 nature and laws of motion of the capitalism; another way of
 saying this is that the LoV summarizes the method of analysis
 that Marx applies in Capital. The LoV is part of what Imre
 Lakatos [1970] terms the "hard core" of tautologies and
 simplifying assumptions that is a necessary part of any research
 program.1 The quantitative aspect of value should be seen as a
 true-by-definition accounting framework to be used to break
 through the fetishism of commodities -- allowing the analysis of
 capitalism as a social system. Prices, the accounting framework
 most used by economists, both reflect existing social relations
 and distort their appearance. It is necessary to have an
 alternative to prices if one wants to understand what is going
 on behind the level of appearances: looking at what people do
 in production (i.e., labor, value) helps reveal the social
 relations between them.

If this interpretation is correct then Quine-Duhem's stuff is irrelevant not
that it makes much sense to me anyway. Seems like a neanderthal idea to
speak of theories implying empirical consequences just like that without
assumptions conditions etc. assumed: or of  "evidence" straightforwardly
supporting a theory. So the Quine-Duhem stuff is not relevant and even if it
were why should it be given any particular weight?  Is  it any less dubious
than the Marxian theory of value?

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22192] Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:11 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:22191] RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism
>
>
> Ian quotes Joan Robinson:
> > "The awkwardness of reckoning in terms of values, while
> commodities
> > and labor power are constantly changing in values, accounts for
> > much of the obscurity of Marx's exposition, and none of the
> > important ideas he expresses in terms of the conceptof value
> cannot
> > be better expressed without it."
>
> I don't think the obscurity of Marx's writing (which is supposed to
> be
> pretty easy to read as German theoretical writing goes) is due to
> his use of
> values. Instead it's because he doesn't do what modern writers do,
> i.e., say
> "this is what I'm going to say first; then I'll talk about this,
> etc.,"
> explaining the level of abstraction and stuff like that (i.e.
> assumptions)
> at each stage. Instead he plays at being Hegel and starts out very
> abstract
> (the Commodity in General) and becomes progressively more concrete
> without
> explaining the logic of his presentation (even though his analysis
> does make
> sense). (Charlie Andrews' recent book follows Marx on value theory,
> but has
> a much better presentation.)
>
> > "As a logical process, the ratio of profits to wages for each
> > individual commodity, can be calculated when the rate of profit
> is
> > known. The transformation is from prices into values, not the
> other
> > way."
>
> this is what's been called the Steedman critique, though obviously
> Robinson
> thought of it first. It's at the center of Analytic Marxism. I
> think it's
> based on a misunderstanding of Marx's project, the facile
> assumption that
> Marx was a minor post-Ricardian who was first and foremost
> interested in
> price theory and distribution theory.
>
> Jim Devine
>
> 
>
> Ok, but given the Quine-Duhem underdetermination problem-link
> below-is not the burden of proof for the indispensability of Marx's
> value theory on those who wish to retain it? Steve Fleetwood has an
> essay on this in a recent issue of Capital & Class.
>
> Ian
>
>
> **
> UNDERDETERMINATION
>
> Empirical equivalence
>
> Two theories T1 and T2 are empirically equivalent if every
> observational consequence of T1 is also an observational
> consequence of T2.
>
> e.g. curved space-time vs.
> flat space-time plus forces
>
> solar system at rest vs.
> solar system moves with uniform rectilinear velocity v
>
>
> Underdetermination and Scepticism
>
> If T1 and T2 are empirically equivalent, every possible piece of
> evidence that supports T1 will also support T2.
>
> The evidence underdetermines our choice between T1 or T2.
> How do we decide which of T1 and T2 is true?
>
> Note This problem only arises where there are empirically
> equivalent theories.
>
> < http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dfl0www/modules/scikandr/ROHP.HTM >
>
>

Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:11 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22191] RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism


Ian quotes Joan Robinson:
> "The awkwardness of reckoning in terms of values, while
commodities
> and labor power are constantly changing in values, accounts for
> much of the obscurity of Marx's exposition, and none of the
> important ideas he expresses in terms of the conceptof value
cannot
> be better expressed without it."

I don't think the obscurity of Marx's writing (which is supposed to
be
pretty easy to read as German theoretical writing goes) is due to
his use of
values. Instead it's because he doesn't do what modern writers do,
i.e., say
"this is what I'm going to say first; then I'll talk about this,
etc.,"
explaining the level of abstraction and stuff like that (i.e.
assumptions)
at each stage. Instead he plays at being Hegel and starts out very
abstract
(the Commodity in General) and becomes progressively more concrete
without
explaining the logic of his presentation (even though his analysis
does make
sense). (Charlie Andrews' recent book follows Marx on value theory,
but has
a much better presentation.)

> "As a logical process, the ratio of profits to wages for each
> individual commodity, can be calculated when the rate of profit
is
> known. The transformation is from prices into values, not the
other
> way."

this is what's been called the Steedman critique, though obviously
Robinson
thought of it first. It's at the center of Analytic Marxism. I
think it's
based on a misunderstanding of Marx's project, the facile
assumption that
Marx was a minor post-Ricardian who was first and foremost
interested in
price theory and distribution theory.

Jim Devine



Ok, but given the Quine-Duhem underdetermination problem-link
below-is not the burden of proof for the indispensability of Marx's
value theory on those who wish to retain it? Steve Fleetwood has an
essay on this in a recent issue of Capital & Class.

Ian


**
UNDERDETERMINATION

Empirical equivalence

Two theories T1 and T2 are empirically equivalent if every
observational consequence of T1 is also an observational
consequence of T2.

e.g. curved space-time vs.
flat space-time plus forces

solar system at rest vs.
solar system moves with uniform rectilinear velocity v


Underdetermination and Scepticism

If T1 and T2 are empirically equivalent, every possible piece of
evidence that supports T1 will also support T2.

The evidence underdetermines our choice between T1 or T2.
How do we decide which of T1 and T2 is true?

Note This problem only arises where there are empirically
equivalent theories.

< http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dfl0www/modules/scikandr/ROHP.HTM >

RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Devine, James]

Ian quotes Joan Robinson: 
> "The awkwardness of reckoning in terms of values, while commodities
> and labor power are constantly changing in values, accounts for
> much of the obscurity of Marx's exposition, and none of the
> important ideas he expresses in terms of the conceptof value cannot
> be better expressed without it."

I don't think the obscurity of Marx's writing (which is supposed to be
pretty easy to read as German theoretical writing goes) is due to his use of
values. Instead it's because he doesn't do what modern writers do, i.e., say
"this is what I'm going to say first; then I'll talk about this, etc.,"
explaining the level of abstraction and stuff like that (i.e. assumptions)
at each stage. Instead he plays at being Hegel and starts out very abstract
(the Commodity in General) and becomes progressively more concrete without
explaining the logic of his presentation (even though his analysis does make
sense). (Charlie Andrews' recent book follows Marx on value theory, but has
a much better presentation.)

> "As a logical process, the ratio of profits to wages for each
> individual commodity, can be calculated when the rate of profit is
> known. The transformation is from prices into values, not the other
> way."

this is what's been called the Steedman critique, though obviously Robinson
thought of it first. It's at the center of Analytic Marxism. I think it's
based on a misunderstanding of Marx's project, the facile assumption that
Marx was a minor post-Ricardian who was first and foremost interested in
price theory and distribution theory. 

Jim Devine

Re: re: re: Historical Materialism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


(1) > Maybe we are not talking the same language. I do not mean by
saying
that Marx holds that prices are prop, to value that commodities
trade at
value, just that there is a function that takes you from value to
prices,
and that this function is statistically true, that is--that over
the long
run he thinks prices will tend to fluctuate around values,
moreover, that
values explain price levels. Surely he believed that!<

(2) no, Marx shows convincingly in volume III of CAPITAL that as
long as (1)
the rate of surplus-value is constant and uncorrelated with the
OCC; (2) the
OCC differs between industries; and (3) the rate of profit tends
toward
equality between sectors, prices gravitate toward prices of
production
(POPs) that differ from values. Maybe you're thinking of Ricardo,
who saw
exactly this kind of result from his analysis but assumed that the
value/POP
correlation was "good enough for early 19th century British
political
economy work" (embracing what historians of economic thought call
the 98%
labor theory of value [i.e., of price]). For Marx, the connection
between
prices and values is macroeconomic in nature, with total value =
total price
and total surplus-value = total property income, with the macro
structure of
accumulation limiting and shaping the microprocesses that make up
that
totality. (Charlie Andrews' recent book, FROM CAPITALISM TO
EQUALITY, is
good on this.)

BTW, later on in volume III, Marx is very clear that individual
participants
in the capitalist system don't give a shite about values or
surplus-value.
They see prices, profits, interest, rent, etc., what he sees as
superficial
representations of value and surplus-value.

=

"The awkwardness of reckoning in terms of values, while commodities
and labor power are constantly changing in values, accounts for
much of the obscurity of Marx's exposition, and none of the
important ideas he expresses in terms of the conceptof value cannot
be better expressed without it."

"As a logical process, the ratio of profits to wages for each
individual commodity, can be calculated when the rate of profit is
known. The transformation is from prices into values, not the other
way."

Joan Robinson

Comments?

Ian

RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism

[Devine, James]

dd writes: >>Out of interest, what's wrong with the labour theory of value
[LTV]?  Do the AMs [analytical Marxists] have an alternative theory of
value, or do you try to get along without one? Feel free to not answer if it
would take more labour than is worth bothering with.<<

A central question is: what in heck do we mean by a "labor theory of value"?
by a "theory of value"? If those terms are clearly defined, a lot of silly
debating disappears.

To my mind, Marx did not have a "labor theory of value" the way Ricardo did,
i.e., a theory aimed at explaining prices by reference to assumedly
pre-existing "values." Marx was not a "price theorist" but a political
economist. Rather, with John Locke, Marx had what I call a "labor theory of
property" (though obviously, Locke's theory is different from Marx's).
Modern orthodox economics -- embraced by folks such as Roemer and some or
all AMs -- embrace a scarcity theory of price, based on a
philosophical/methodological basis of individualism. Crucial to their
"theory of value" is the assumption that the word "value" can only be
interpreted as meaning "price." 

jks writes: > I don't want to get into this in great detail, but here's the
short version.  What's called the LTV has two meanings. The [loose] meaning,
intended by most people, is the vulgar version, that labor is the only
source of value, which Marx accepts, <

this ignores the issue of what's meant by "value." I believe that for Marx,
it has the following kind of meaning: since he views all societies as
essentially communities of workers (and perhaps non-workers), the value of a
product represents the contribution of its producer to the community as a
whole, from the perspective of the community. (Price would be from the
perspective of individual participants in the system.) In this perspective,
labor is value, as judged from the perspective of the society (that's the
"socially-necessary" part of SNALT). 

(The term SNALT should not evoke "Gesundheit!" it refers to
socially-necessary abstract labor time.)

>but not in the sense used by most of its adherents, who think that the
vulgar version implies taht workers are entitled,  morally, to the value
that their labor is the source of. Marx was not interested in claims of
justice and would have regarded the labor theory of property underlying this
argument as so much ideology. The vulgar version is wrong in any case
because there is no reason to deny that there may be many factors, including
subjective ones (demand) that go into value.<

Marx is pretty clear at the beginning of volume I of CAPITAL that if there's
no demand for a commodity, the labor that goes into it doesn't produce
value. 

> The strict version, used by Marx, holds that price is roughly proportional
to socially necessary abstract labor time. This faces the famous
transformation problem, roughly that there is no nice way to
[mathematically] turn labor values into prices. Marx's own solution is
fatally falwed,a s is universally acknowledged. Borktiwiesz developed a
mathemaeticall adequate solution (expalined simply by Sweezy in The Theory
of Cap Dev.), but the conditions under which it holds are so special and
unrealistic taht it is doubtful that the model has much applicability--you
have to assume constant returns to scale, no alternative production methods,
etc. In addition  there is the neoRicardan critique (Sraffa and Steedman,
arrived at independently by Samuelson) onw hich labor valuesa rea  fifth
wheel: we can compute them from wages and technical input, and under
especial conditions establish a proportionality to prices, but you can get
the prices  directly from the other factors, so why bother with the labor
values?<

As I said before, Marx did not believe that "price is roughly proportional
to socially abstract labor time." In terms of the idea posited above that
value is the contribution of an individual producer to the community as a
whole (as evaluated by that community), it's important to remember that for
Marx, capitalism is an alienated community. Thus, there is no presumption on
his part (except as a simplifying assumption in volume I of CAPITAL and
under that mythical system called "simple commodity production") that
individual contributions to the whole (values) are always proportional to
the society's rewards to an individual (exchange-values, prices). 

Further, if values were always (or always tended toward being) proportional
to exchange-values or prices, the nature of the economic system would be
much more transparent: neither commodity fetishism nor the illusions created
by competition would be important. 

> Finally, there's the point that is key to my mind, which is that the
theory have proved fruitless. There is a minor industry of defending the
LTV, but the fact is that no one has done any interesting work using the
theory for over 100 years. <

Of course, there's a minor industry _debunking_ the so-called LTV, so that
the two "industries" form a predator/prey