Date: Sun, 04 Sep 1994 07:25:55 +1000 From: Steve.Keen-AT-unsw.EDU.AU Subject: Re: value Dear Chris, You said you's send me your snailmail address, but it wasn't in your post. Please send it. As for my "reversal of the terms in the dialectic", yes it was "merely a slip". I am occasionally guilty of a sloppy email post -- aren't we all -:) -- but as for "total sloppiness", I suggest you leave judgment of my overall logic and scholarly status to after you read my written work. BTW, I am 41; I too read Capital before the English translation of the Grundrisse was available--and the logic I now trumpet was apparent to me on that first reading. I took a long excursion through non-academic life before returning to see whether I could justify my views by a thorough examination of the development of Marx's economic analysis. Your comment was in reference to Marx's letter to Engels about "the best thing in Capital". You appear to have missed the post where I followed that up (and unfortunately I can't access it myself at the moment--my old computer is "down" at present). To recap it briefly, if the abstract labor/concrete labor distinction was literally "the best thing in Capital", then since Engels knew this "from the horse's mouth", surely this would be what he promoted in his subsequent attempts to popularise Marx's work. Consult _On Marx's Capital_, and _Anti-Durhing_; you will find that what Engels popularises is in fact the use-value/exchange-value dialectic. To get to what I see as the gist of your last post, you have actually put forward something which can delineate between my interpretation and yours. We have a "testable hypothesis", in the words of Popper. Briefly, my position is that Marx made a logical advance in the Grundrisse which became the foundation of his post-Grundrisse analysis. Properly applied, this logic contradicts the LTV. However, Marx made an error in the application of this logic which enabled him to continue with the LTV, and this error hardened in subsequent work. In particular, he worked out a way of apparently but in fact erroneously justifying the "value non-productivity" of the means of production using this logic. Your position appears to be that Marx used a commodity-based analysis in the Grundrisse, but by the time of Capital, had made a break with this logic and instead based his analysis of value in the non-commodity nature of labor and labor-power. His reason for making the break was that the uv/ev dialectic does contradict the LTV, which Marx "*stubbornly refused*" to abandon, and as a result of this stubbornness was led to the revelation that "*labor* itself was not a commodity". To quote you on this: "The logical error arises from Marx, at this time, seeing *labour* as a commodity. First of all, Marx proves that a particular commodity cannot be the opposite of capital. He then shows that *all commodities* are the opposite of capital insofar as they are objectified labour and that labour is the "opposite pole to capital". Here he strongly affirms the labour theory of value, but leads himself into the trap of now having to state that a particular commodity, *labour*, is the opposite of capital, thus contradicting his first premise. You claim that the only way out of this logical contradiction is to drop the labour theory of value. But this is something that Marx *stubbornly refused to do*. He regarded it as central. Instead, *exactly because* he refused to drop it he was able to ultimately make a far more profound analysis than that contained in Grundrisse. He ultimately grasped that *labour* itself was not a commodity. The commodity with the unique ability to produce more value than its own value was *labour power*. He was then able to analyse the two aspects of this commodity as *concrete labour* (Substance) and *abstract labour* (Magnitude)... It is surely this that Marx was referring to when he said, according to you yourself, that the "best thing in Capital" is the "distinction between abstract labour and concrete labour". This was a vital and difficult development in his analysis over earlier work. It was made by resolving the logical errors in the Grundrisse that you at first deny the existence of, but then proceed to pinpoint. Marx resolved these logical errors whilst *completely retaining* the labour theory of value." If I have done you no injustice in my paraphrase of your position, then there are 2 things we can do to attempt to resolve our debate: (1) Re-read the crucial sections of Capital where Marx uncovers the source of surplus, to see which of the two logics-- uv/ev or concrete/abstract labor--he uses. (2) Analyse Marx's language statistically to see: whether there was a break between the Grundrisse and Capital, or whether there was continuity; and to see which set of phrases--uv/ev or concrete/abstract labor-- occurs most frequently. I have been considering (2) for a long time; computer technology would enable us to process and analyse Marx's word usage statistically. Would you be interested in a joint research project on this? In conclusion, a few comments re (1). (a) I am quite happy with the notion that labor is not a commodity; but in my thesis I develop slightly the "dialectic of labor" as an explanation of why the wage will normally *exceed* the value of labor-power. You, in line with traditional interpretations of Marx, use the non-commodity aspect of labor as an explanation of why labor is the source of surplus. (b) Page 188 is the crucial page of Capital, of course. Does Marx explain surplus there on the basis of the non-commodity aspects of labor, or does he explain it on the basis of its commodity aspects? A few excerpts from that page where the source of surplus is first revealed: "What really influenced him [the capitalist] was the specific use-value which this commodity possesses of being *a source not only of value, but of more value than it has itself*." That appears to support me, but of course you can argue that the fact that this commodity possesses "more value than it has itself" is a product of its non-commodity aspects (the concrete labor/ abstract labor analysis--how about a cl/al shorthand), and not a consequence of it being a commodity (the uv/ev analysis). However, everywhere on that page, Marx seems to be at pains to argue the aspects that labor-power shares with commodities, rather than to emphasise the ways in which labor is not a commodity: "This is the special service that the capitalist expects from labor-power, and in this transaction he acts in accordance with the 'eternal laws' of the exchange of commodities. The seller of labor-power, like the seller of any other commodity, realises its exchange-value, and parts with its use-value." And so on. (c) Being bereft of my electronic notes at present, I decided to flick through Capital at random, to see whether I came across discussions of cl/al or uv/ev. The following paragraph was one of many I found. In it there is certainly a confusion of different ideas; but there is one expression at its head that I think should disturb your argument that Marx in Capital had abandoned the possibility of use-value being--only in the circumstances of productive consumption--quantitative: "Further: Exchange-value and use-value, being intrinsically incommensurable magnitudes..." (p. 506) Cheers, Steve Keen ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005