I wrote:
Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a
(poor) theory of why some people have property and some people have more
than others in society. Every few years I try to convince people to
change the name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his "labor theory of
At 09:01 AM 9/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are
sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values.
=
I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that
even though nature is the source of
JD
I think that for Marx, as with Locke, nature has no value _in society_
unless someone mixes labor with it. Both present theories of society when
they present their labor theories.
Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor)
theory of why some people have
In a message dated 9/26/00 6:09:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor)
theory of why some people have property and some people have more than
others in society. Every few years I try to convince
Ian wrote:
My sense is that this would be somewhat helpful in developing Marxian
theories of enterprises [not Marxian theories of capitalist firms] which
took legal factors into account. It is alternatives not more critique that
needs to be done now. For the last ten months the critiques have
Ken Hanly wrote:
Surely it is too restrictive to distinguish only "use values" and "exchange
values". Things can be intrinsically valuable to humans i.e. the enjoyment
of a sunset, the taste of an apple,
(Preliminary: Neither Marxism nor any other ism is a TOE [theory of
everything])
Michael wrote:
Fabian, you are perfectly welcome to unsub. Just send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsub pen-l.
I would rather that you stay and try to dialogue in a more amicable
fashion. Carrol was wrong to have written the way he did. I responded
earlier regarding that post, but calling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
Louis Proyect
Lou loves to
Don't forget, Marx considered circus performance to be productive labor.
Louis Proyect wrote:
Now wait just a gosh-darned minute. I regarded [being called a clown] a
compliment.
3, p. 745 (International edition)
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 1:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:2244] Re: Re: Re: Re: the labor theory of value
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Day
No, you are thinking about the passage at the start of the Critique of the Gotha
Program where Marx attacks the idea that labor creates all wealth, not value. For
MArx, value is by definition embodied labor. --jks
In a message dated Mon, 25 Sep 2000 2:57:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
"Natural elements entering as agents into production, and which cost
nothing, no
matter what role they play in production, do not enter as components
of capital,
but as a free gifts of Nature to capital, that is, as a free gift of Nature's
productive power to labour."
But Marx does not explicitly equate use-values with wealth in his opening
rebuttal sentence. Value, use-value and wealth are confused and entangled in
his retort. Is the source of use-values itself a use-value, a value or
wealth? Doug's query from a while back hits the last sentence below quite
At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
enterprise.
for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only
labor creates value.
But use values have exchange
Brad, read the first two pages of Ricardo's _Principles_. A major mistake of the
economics profession was in developing the theory of value for commodities that
derive their value from scarcity, in other words, for exceptional cases, instead
of focusing on the general case, *reproducible
What Brad writes is perfectly consistent with Marx's labor theory of value [with
one exception], although numerous comentators pretend to have discovered some
glaring defect. The exception is that things can have exchange value even if they
are not scarce -- I will leave out all the asterisks.
Under simple commodity production (where there is neither wage-labor
nor surplus-value), the deviations between prices and values are
_accidental_ (a disequilibrium phenomenon).
They are not a disequilibrium phenomenon. Scarce resource-based
products *continue* to have prices in excess of
Of course, the cost of reproduction must be the least cost option. Oxygen
is a by product of growing plants. The technology Brad proposes is not
very cost-efficient.
If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one
Brad, I think that there is some similarity between Hayek (Don't tell Justin)
and this part of Marx's theory. Hayek, you suggest, came to the right
conclusion without the labor theory of value. So what? I might propose a
biblical explanation for why a rock falls to the ground. Would that
If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one would say that
the cost of air is determined by its cost of reproduction...
Brad DeLong
===
So math has no value?
Ian
At 04:16 PM 09/25/2000 -0700, you wrote:
Sounds a lot like Hayek's vision of the business cycle. But Hayek managed
to do fine without the LToV. So what's its role in this Hayekian mechanism?
The Austrian edifice, including Hayek, is based on Marx and his immediate
followers (though they tried
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:11:03 Jim Devine wrote:
BTW, you should know that (at least in e-mails), your style of writing
conveys a heavy air of dogmatism. (That's why, I would guess, that Louis
Proyect's response to you was so flippant.) It's not a good idea to enter
an e-mail discussion
Fabian Balardini wrote:
I put this thread on a bad track? How, by saying that after reviewing the
debate on value theory at OPE-L and studying the TSS propositions for almost two
years I have reached the conclusion that TSS opponents are irrational and dishonest?
yes, but the above
Louis wrote:
I doubt if this "transformation problem" will ever go away if it is posed
in terms of a correct mathematical paradigm.
Right. Most of the literature wallows around in math that conceals more
than it reveals. Many authors actively eschew philosophical reflection
about what they're
--
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:38:45 Louis Proyect wrote:
The latest Science and Society has an interesting article (Rhetoric and
Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism) by
editor Dave Laibman. It is a response to one written by Andrew Kliman and
Ted McGlone titled "A
Fabian:
I don't think you understand the critique by Kliman,McGlone and other TSS
authors.
LP:
Correct.
Fabian:
I see their main point as saying that the Marxist orthodoxy has adopted a
concept of value different from Marx's starting with Bortkiewicks first
formalization of the transformation
At 11:48 AM 09/23/2000 -0400, you wrote:
I don't think you understand the critique by Kliman,McGlone and other TSS
authors. Their work is not a defense of "orthodox Marxist value theory"
but a radical break with it. In fact, I see their critique to be so
destructive of what we know as
I wrote that instead of the TSS being rejected because (d) its opponents
don't understand it or (e) its opponents were ideological, as Fabian
asserted, the TSS could be (a) logically wrong; (b) spinning models that
don't fit empirical reality; or (c) leaving out important components of
Justin wrote:
The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
Louis Proyect
Fabian put this thread on a bad track. The labor theory of value does seem to
raise passions. I thought that
29 matches
Mail list logo
