Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 16:36:37 -0400 (EDT) From: SCIABRRC-AT-ACFcluster.NYU.EDU Subject: MORE ON LABOR THEORY OF VALUE In a posting from "wpc-AT-cs.strath.ac.uk" (I did not locate a name for this posting), I was criticized for accepting the Boehm-Bawerkian critique of the labor theory of value (LTV). The critic claims that the Boehm-Bawerkian argument rests on the assumption of a uniform rate of profit, "which is empirically false." He/she criticizes me for accepting the "speculative" character of the argument. Granted, there is a "speculative" characteristic inherent in Boehm-Bawerk's critique of the LTV. (Marx was criticized similarly by `bourgeois' theorists who saw his dialectical method as purely `speculative'.) Actually, Boehm-Bawerk's critique is LOGICAL; it attacks the VERY PRINCIPLES underlying the labor theory. The LTV, and all of the `empirical' evidence offered in its name, overlooks a QUALITATIVE dimension which cannot be ignored in any LEGITIMATE theory of value. First, the Boehm-Bawerkian-Austrian argument is NOT based on the assumption of static equilibrium or uniform rates of profit. I explicitly stated in one of my earlier postings that some Austrians, such as Ludwig Lachmann, argue that there are DISequilibrating tendencies in the market economy. In the real world, there is NO uniform rate of profit, just as there is NO "perfect competition," and NO "static equilibrium." Austrians are almost united in their opposition to ALL such neo-classical constructs. (For instance, not even the slightest hint of a "perfect competition" model will be found in ANY work by ANY Austrian.) And the Austrians are also far more sensitive to the real, historical circumstances surrounding the evolution of market relations. They understand that there has never been a purely `FREE' market in history. Markets have always been deeply affected by various forms of state interventionism: taxation, public goods provision, the money supply, licensure, franchises, regulations, etc. The Austrians have typically attempted to trace the internal relationship between political and economic factors within a larger, organic social totality. The Austrians criticize the LTV on several grounds, including the fact that the LTV, in its reliance on the spurious notion of "socially necessary" labor, cannot quantify changes in marginal labor costs due to changes in the material or natural conditions of production. More important, the LTV completely DISREGARDS the crucial differences between the various gradations in the QUALITY of labour. "For Marx," as Ludwig von Mises argues, "all human labour is economically homogeneous. . . " Skilled labor is a multiple of simple labor. Think about it: How is it possible to posit such a common denominator in the calculation of labor value? Where is the UNITARY PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURE of all human labor that can help us to QUANTIFY the value of BOTH `PHYSICAL' and `MENTAL' products? How does one quantify the value of the child-rearer, the housekeeper, Elvis Presley, modern art? In the aesthetic and intellectual market, what makes the scrawls and blotches of a `modern' artist worth more to some consumers than a Rembrandt or a Van Gogh? How much more `labor' did the Beatles expend in the production of their music (which earned more money), than did Einstein in the production of the theory of relativity? Surely there is a difference IN KIND between the person who INVENTS the automobile, and the day laborer who tightens the nuts and bolts on an automobile assembly line. Are we not doing violence to the whole concept of HUMAN labor by reducing a complex intellectual or material skill or product to an `additive' of simpler skills? `Know-how', skills, and labor practices encompass a tacit, qualitative dimension which is not captured by the LTV. Mises and Boehm-Bawerk argued that ultimately, the question of finding a common denominator for the products of different qualitative skills cannot be resolved without introducing the `subjective' valuation of the products by the consumer. Or, we might add, the `subjective' valuation of the product by the THEORIST who passes judgment on the relative value of that which HE OR SHE CONSIDERS "socially necessary." Mises states quite correctly that any attempt to resolve skilled labor into simpler labor will be based on "a purely arbitrary relation". I do not believe that any advocate of the labor theory of value has EVER resolved these issues. There may be all sorts of exploitation and power relations in the contemporary social economy, but I do not believe that one can find their basis in a theory which has NO logical validity. And remember, a thorough materialist such as Marx would never have viewed empirical facts and logic as inherently opposed. For Marx, as for Aristotle, the laws of logic are ultimately, EMPIRICAL and ONTOLOGICAL. They are based on an ostensive, axiomatic inference about the real world. To denigrate `speculative' or logical thought as bearing no relation to `empirical' reality, is to completely misunderstand the INTERNAL RELATIONSHIP between logic and experience, thought and action, theory and practice, mind and body. - Chris ============================================================Dr. Chris M. Sciabarra Visiting Scholar, N.Y.U. Department of Politics INTERNET: sciabrrc-AT-acfcluster.nyu.edu BITNET: sciabrrc-AT-nyuacf ============================================================ ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005