File spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1994/94-09-30.000, message 75


Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 14:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Labor theory of value debate


I approach the whole debate on LTV from a somewhat different 
perspective than that of the academically trained economists, but allow me 
to put in my two cents. (I am reading Ronald Meek's "Studies in the Labor 
Theory of Value" to get a better understanding of some of the background 
controversy and to give me a better perspective on the whole debate.) 

But one problem I have with the authorities that Keene appeals to is that 
the argumentation relies heavily on mathematics. I stopped by the Barnard 
library and took a look at Minsky's book and was stopped dead in my 
tracks by all of the differential equations.

This led me to consider why I am so wary at the outset of a theory so 
heavily reliant on mathematics. Mathematics seems to be an insufficient 
entry-point into the study of capitalism. It tends to view social phenomena 
in a rather static fashion. Computer modelling, calculus, etc. might be 
sufficient for figuring out how to build bridges, missile guidance systems, 
etc. They don't seem exactly up to the task of analyzing the class struggle.

Math can state with some clarity that 6 + 3 = 9 and that by the same token 
9 = 6 + 3. It doesn't necessarily have the same ability to deal with the 
behavior of individuals and classes under capitalism. In a textbook 
situation, one can talk about the role of the federal reserve, deficit 
spending, unemployment insurance and other institutions in a welfare state 
in averting crisis, but real life doesn't always take place in such a neat 
fashion.

In other words, economics must interact with politics in order to analyze 
economic phenomena within a dynamic social and historical reality. This 
is missing from Keene's approach.

I think this is most obvious in his understanding of revolution. He says that 
cataclysms like the Great Depression are as likely to lead to fascism as to 
socialism. Since Keene is a self-described reformist, this shows a rather 
acute misunderstanding of what took place in the 1930's. There were 
powerful reformist parties that shared not only Keene's faith in the welfare 
state but also some of Eduard Bernstein's anti-Marxist and anti-LTV 
economic theories. These parties were hegemonic in a number of countries 
including France and Germany. It was their failure of nerve and 
sectarianism toward the CP (of course, the CP was also blindly sectarian) 
that allowed fascism and Hitlerism to triumph.

There are signs of incipient fascism in Europe today and the political heirs 
of depression-era reformism are committing the same kind of errors. 
Mitterand adapts to Le Pen and the German social democrats accept quotas 
on immigrants. Nothing seems to change. Sraffaist economics seems totally 
besides the point when it comes to explaining or challenging 
developments such as these.

Another flaw in the Keene economic schema is that it totally ignores the 
reality of the underdeveloped world. It is all well and good to 
talk about how "big government" makes "crashes of the Great Depression
 kind almost impossible". That's fine for the USA, Japan and Europe but 
what does this mean for Africa, Latin America and most of Asia where 
the great majority of the planet's population lives. Keynsianism has 
very little significance for these countries. I would also argue that 
one of the reasons the advanced countries have managed to avoid a 
Great Depression is that the underdeveloped world has been undergoing a 
GREAT DEPRESSION for most of the century at the expense of imperialism.


Louis N. Proyect (lnp3-AT-columbia.edu)


     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005