Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 00:26:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: value



If I understand James H. _now_, his view is that the LTV has no
quantitative dimension _at all_: it's pure historical sociology. Now I
agree that the historical sociology is what is salvagable from the LTV,
but as a reading of _Marx_ I think this is just wrong. He puts a lot of
weight on quantitative measurements of value content. This is at the core,
for example, of his attempt to demonstate the tendency of the rate of
profit to fall. It's also important in his various discussions of
measuring the increasing rate of exploitation. And I think it matters a
lot in his price theory, which I think he has,a lthough I'm inclined to
agree with James H that he doesn't need it.

--Justin

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, James Heartfield wrote:

> In message <Pine.3.07.9711301411.A13489-d100000-AT-login>, Justin Schwartz
> <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us> writes
> >
> >I don't understand James H's fine distinction between a determinant and a
> >measure of magnitude. Maybe his thought is that labor time is only one
> >among many determinants of the magnitude of value, which is measured as
> >sort of a sum or vector of all the determinants. (Those are not the same
> >thing, but I'm guessing at his meaning.) 
> 
> No, far from it, and I agree with the following.
> 
> >I think this would be wrong
> >because Marx cleraly defines value in purely labor content terms, as
> >expressing the fact that a certain quantity of labor goes into producing
> >the commodity. Of course Marx cknowledges that _price_ has other
> >determinants than value, hence the transformation problem.
> >
> 
> The point is that there is no need to measure value in Marx's system
> because it is not a practical method of allocating values, but a logical
> reconstuction of how and why labour time comes to be expressed in value.
> The question of measuring value is redundant for Marx, because value is
> expressed relatively in the exchange ratio with an equivalent. Marx's
> account of how labour time determines the objective value of commodities
> describes a social relation, but knowledge of the same in itself has no
> impact upon the spontaneous expression of value in exchange value.
> 
> >I think the difference between Marx and Ricardo is in Marx's insistence
> >that the quantity of labor that goes into determination of value be
> >socially necessary,s o taht it's an aggregate and historically relative
> >notion rather than an individual one.
> That is an important distinction between Marx and Ricardo, as is the
> failure to distinguish surplus value and profit, or the failure to
> account for capitals of different compositions not diverging in the
> value of their products. However, all of those confusions arise finally
> fromthe methodological failing that Ricardo, lacking an historical
> spproach, is preoccupied only with the substance and magnitude of value
> to the exclusion of its form, that which distinguishes capitalist
> society from other societies.
> 
> Fraternally
> -- 
> James Heartfield
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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