File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-02-14.064, message 22


Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:53:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Siddharth Chatterjee <siddhart-AT-mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: LTV




On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Justin Schwartz wrote:

<snip>
> 
> One thing that a theory of capitalist exploitation has to capture, to
> represent capitalism accurately, is that capitalists don't want the stuff
> they take from the direct producers for its own sake, but to sell for
> profits. Feudal exploiters, by contrast, typically want the stuff the they
> take mainly to consume directly. One way to say this is that what
> capitalists want from their exploitation is its value. But this is to use
> the word in a nontechnical sense. Certaintly capitalists do not say to
> themselves, I'm gonna make the workers produce a greater share of socially
> necessary labor time that is embodied in the commodities I sell. Most of
> them have never _heard_ of the LTV. They say rather, I'll cut my labor
> costs and make more profits. Now, this doesn't show that value in Marx's
> sense does not work. It may operate, as Marx things, objectively, behind
> the backs of the exchangers. But that's a big "may"--that value does so
> operate has to be shown.
> 

If "value" may or may not operate behind the backs of exchangers, what
does? Please explain. 


> In my papers on exploitation theory, which, by the way, are published,
> Mark, in widely circulated major journals and accessible to anyone with
> enough get-up-and-go to go to a university library or ask on interlibrary
> loan for the revelant volumes, I say that we can usefully speak
> qualitatively of value to capture the idea that capitalists are interested
> in what they can sell stuff for and not just to have it themselves. I also
> argue that most of this value is indeed contributed by labor
> --obviously I;m not following Marx in treating value as definitionally
> embodied labor. Rather value is whatever explains why commodities exchange
> in stable ratios, which includes a large but quantatively somewhat
> indeterminate labor component.
> 

What is heat? A form of energy. What is temperature? An indication of
of the quantity of heat in a body. Does heat exist? Yes, since one
can measure it (relatively speaking) by registering its temperature.
With value it is much more complicated since to determine the exact
value of a commodity at a given instant, immense amounts of data
and computing power would be necesssary. But in principle, it could
be done. So value cannot be calculated at present? Does this means it
should be junked since a numerical measure cannot be assigned to it?
For if value does not exist, neither does surplus value and the whole
theory of exploitation collapses (please remember: the great sages
like Christ, Buddha denounced exploitation qualitatively).

One could also argue that "prices of production" do not exist since
what one actually sees are market prices. And even these change from
moment to moment. So according to Justin's logic, we cannot talk
in a quantitative fashion about market price. And what are these
instaneous market prices? Blips of binary flashes in electronic networks.
The mystification is complete. Instead of diving below the surface to
see what is causing the waves, one is carried away by the waves
themselves.

There is a strange fence straddling in the logic of the analytical
Marxists. "Yes, value may exist or may not but it does not matter
since that is not important." Here is G. A Cohen (paraphrase): "Labor
does not create value but it creates things which has it". Brilliant
insight! 

<snip> 

> 
> But it would be wrong. In the first place, I do not think that Marx
> actually _held_ the labor theory of value. He used it, to be sure. It was
> the dominant theory in political economy of his day and he operated within
> in its intelllctual ambit. But I think Marx regards the theory as only a
> useful heuristic, as approximately true, but since truth does not come in
> degrees, as false in fact. 

So Marx did not hold the LTV but still used it since it was a useful
heuristic. This points to a highly opportunistic streak in Marx! (that is,
if Justin is correct - otherwise Justin is interpreting Marx in a highly
opportunistic fashion!). Also, also all truths are only approximate
but nevertheless, that does not point to their falsity. Otherwise, the
name "truth" would not be used.   

> 
> In CIII he expressly abandons the law of value, that commodities exchange
> at value equivalents. What remains of it in the more sophisticated model
> of CIII is a "tendency" of prices to fluctuate around values, although
> since valyes cannot be determined for individual commodities but only in
> aggregate it's not clear how this proposition is supposed to be tested. In
> CIII also he abandons the proposition that all profits come from surplus
> value. Some, he says, come from technical monopolies on things like
> waterfalls (his example); and by implication, from other sources like
> market luck, sharp trading, and the like. Most profits come from labor,
> but it's not analytically true that they do. So, Marx does not hold the LTV. 
> Moreover, even if he did, he need not have.. For he could have said the
> things I just did, and more besides, and generally recast his theory
> without commitment at least to a quantative value theory. In doing so he

After writing CI (and CII) where he develops painstakingly the law of
value, Marx had qualms of conscience and in CIII he abandons this concept
according to above paragraph. Remarkable, this fellow Marx who cannot
be trusted to stick to his guns. He vacillates like a child or a 
butterfly! If one does not learn the alphabet, algebra, Euclidean
geometry, i.e., if one does not analyze the process in its barest
essence first, how then is it possible to account for other factors
which disguise and complicate the main process? Of course, it is im-
possible. Again according to JS, "Most profits come from labor, but it's
not analytically true that they do." What is the meaning of this
sentence?  Clarity, Clarity, Clarity! 

S. Chatterjee

PS: To bring clear-headed thinking into our analytical marxists (and
    also historical materialists) here is a suggestion. Tie them to
    a chair with bandanas over their mouths. That way any kind of
    motion and speech will be impossible. Also no food and BOOKS.
    Only clear water to drink. After a week of such exercise,
    the head will be cleared  of all the hob goblins and the mind
    will become lucid.
    Note to moderators: Above is only a recommendation and not a threat.
    
   



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005