File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/marxism-thaxis.9711, message 350


Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:30:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: value


On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, jurriaan bendien wrote:

> "Commercial" value, as JB calls it, the value (die Wert) of
> > goods and services, is the _only_ topic of the LTV, and that's the sort
> of
> > value of which MArx thinks labor is the only source.
>  
> I agree with Justin here, although in some contexts I might qualify that a
> little.

Good.

> 
> Justin writes:
> 
> > I further think that Hugh is right and JB wrong that Marx is indeed
> > seeking a labor-magnitude numaire in using the quantity of socially
> > necessarily labor time as the measure of the magnitude of value. One clue
> > to this is the (rather bad) argument at the very start of Capital I that
> > if equal exchange of commodities is possible, it must be in virtue of
> some
> > equal quantity of something commensurable embodied in those commodities,
> viz. labor. This shows that Marx does indeed think of labor value as an
> econometric yardstick. 
> 
> I think that from Marx's "bad argument" (I agree it is not all that good
> the way he formulates it) it does not follow that he has the same objective
> as Ricardo does. 

I didn't say he did, across the board. I just said that he want a measure
of the magitude of value.

 He makes some assumptions for the sake of argument, and
> later he overturns these assumptions.  Marx is really saying is that in a
> simple case of commodity trade, the owners must in practice refer to some
> equivalence to valuate the commodity being exchanged.  And
> historically/anthropologically speaking, they typically did refer to the
> amount of labour involved in their production, and on that basis stable
> exchange ratios originally evolved, irrespective of whether money was
> already used or not.

I disagree. I think the point is not about the psychology and
practicailities of a barter economy but about the deep need for some
objective commensuration of incommensurabilities to make exchange
possible. Marx makes fun of psychological-practical arguments in other
context, e.g,., in explaining the nature of money.

Value in a postcapitalist society. JB says:

 I do not say that the law
> of value regulates a communist society or a "society of the associated
> producers".  I am talking about the transition to communism, involving a
> phase of "market socialism" if you like to call it that.

OK. Although this is thes tory Marx gibes in the Manifesto rather than in
the CGP, where the first phase of communism is still a nonmarket society.

  Assuming the
> overthrow of the capitalist state and the introduction of forms of
> planning, the law of value will thus continue to operate in varying
> degrees, so long as markets exist in the post-capitalist society. 

If value theory is true, yes.

> the first place, I feel that an approach like that of the IS, which
> actually rejects very basic elements of Marxist theory, cannot be useful in
> the struggle for socialism.

Well, rejecting very basic erlements of Marxism may be necessary. But I
agree with you about the Brit SWP's state cap analysis of the ex-USSR.

> 
> > Of course if you are a market socialist like me, and if, unlike me, you
> > believe in the LTV, you will think that a market socialist society will
> > operate on the basis of value. But I suspect that's not what JB means.
> > 
> Well it is an it isn't.  I am saying that the law of value continues to
> operate so long as you have goods produced and distributed in response to
> market signals.  This doesn't however means that a "market socialist"
> society will operate on the basis of the law of value alone, it also
> operates on the basis of planning.  

Like any realw orld capitalist economy. Even in America large sectors of
the economy are planned and larger sectors are regulated.

I suppose we ought to be a bit careful
> about our terminology here.  What you call "market socialism" others might
> want to call the "transitional society", "post-capitalist society" etc.

Sure, ALthough I have encountered no argument that persuades me that a
market socialist society can be trransitional to a nonmarket society taht
would be an improvement.

> Mandel for instance wrote a polemic against Alec Nove about the "myth of
> market socialism", the argument being that socialism implies by definition
> the use of allocative mechanisms different from the market.  But I am not
> so much concerned about the labels, more about the specific economic
> principles and processes involved. 
> 
Good.
> 
> I said:
> 
> >  Therefore it does matter if Marx's value theory is
> > > correct or not, apart from offering insights in historical method.
> 
> Justin responds:
> > 
> > Huh? It's essential, but it doesn't matter if it's correct? You lost me.
> > 
> I was referring to people who argue that really it doesn'yt matter of
> Marx's value theory is not correct, because what matters is that he offers
> a method of historical specificity.  I am disagreeing with those people. 
> Maybe I didn't write it up so well.
> 

I still don't get it.

The FROP:
> 
> My reply would be: both the operation of the law itself, and the
> countertendencies are empirically testable. . . . [There is] good evidence
that the
> rate of profit does indeed show a long-run historical tendency to decline. 
> So the law does manifest itself as far as I am concerned, 

Maybe, although it's disputed. But even if there is a secular tendenct of
the RoP to fall, that doesn't show that Marx's explanation of that
tendency is right. Marx offered an explanation of this alleged phenomenon
because it was the common wisdom in his day that it was falling, any any
respectable theory ought to explain that fact. But if it is, there are
other possible explanations. And it's at least questionable whether it is.

> 
> Justin writes:
> 
>  There have been mathematical challenges to the consistency of the argument
> for the tendency itself.
> 
> Of course we can drag out the bogey of "mathematical challenges".  But the
> mathematics is only relevant insofar as a clear concept exists of Marx's
> theory of capitalist dynamics and what is actually is that we are trying to
> measure and quantify.  For instance a lot of discussion on the so-called
> transformation problem, from what I read of it in the past, is just a lot
> of nonsense.  The assumptions made have more in common with Walras than
> with Marx, frankly.  The mathematical models must be consistent witht the
> intention and substance of Marx's theory.  

Yes. We'd have to get into the merits of specific models. This is really
too hairy for internet discussion and too time-consuming for a law student
preparing for exams. I simply raise the point to remark on doubts a
reasonbale person might have.

Incidentally you can state the
> argument about the TPRF coherently without any special reference to value
> theory, and it will still hold up (see further Anwar Shaikh, The current
> crisis" causes and implications - Solidarity pamphlet).
> 

And what does this tell us about the utility of value theory?

> > It's not evident that there is much support for the notion that capital
> > intensive industries are less a source of profit than labor intensive
> > industries, etc. 
> 
> Marx's own theory of capitalist development would lead you to conclude
> this.  That is to say, industries with a higher organic composition of
> capital appropriate relatively more profits, they are in a better position
> to appropriate surplus profits.

Begs the question. My point was that there is no independent support for
this somewhat implausible proposition.
> 
> I don't think the theory has ever been stated in a satisfactory and
> plausibly way, my apologies to Shaikh, who makes the best go of it to my
> knowledge. 
> > 
> Which work by Shaikh are you referring to ? 
> 
Well, the one you cited, among others.

--Justin




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005