Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 14:59:48 -0400 (EDT) From: SCIABRRC-AT-ACFcluster.NYU.EDU Subject: Labor Value and Class (!) Bias Having been accused of "class bias," I offer this response to Paul Cockshott. In my presentation of the Austrian approach, I took pains to point out that while Boehm-Bawerk's argument struck at the very LOGIC of the LTV, it was a mistake to keep drawing a distinction, as Paul does, between LOGIC and EMPIRICAL REALITY. The dialectical approach tell us, IF ANYTHING, that there is something deeply wrong with such dualistic thinking. And yet Paul continues to bifurcate social life in such a manner. Paul then goes on to criticize my "revealing" use of the word "quality," which, in his view, suggests a certain "class prejudice" on my part that is both un-empirical and un- scientific. He argues too, that the subjectivist theory of value views prices as the results of ideas in the heads of buyers and sellers. First, in the subjective theory, prices establish OBJECTIVE parameters; they transmit OBJECTIVE information on relative scarcities. But this information is presented to market participants who relate such knowledge to their own contexts. This context is both social and individual. Like hermeneutical texts, prices REVEAL different things to different people RELATIVE to their specific contexts. The prices HAVE MEANING because they not only relate to these contexts, but are GENERATED by the context itself, i.e., by the SOCIAL interactions of the participants. The status of the subjectivist theory is NO LESS UN- empirical than the spurious notions of "socially necessary" labor time which are DEFINED as "socially necessary" BY THE THEORIST. What is "socially necessary" to me MAY NOT be "socially necessary" to another person. Now, to return to the issue of "quality". One can "deconstruct" the meaning of a word in so many ways, and still miss the point. The Austrians were NOT unsettled by the "democratic" implications of the labor theory of value. In fact, the Austrians show a remarkable similarity to Marx in their grasp of the nature of human labor. For instance, the Austrians would agree with Marx WHOLEHEARTEDLY, who stated in CAPITAL, that: "at the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman's will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention..." The Austrians would further agree with Marx that the distinctive SPECIES characteristic of human labor is that it is "free, conscious activity." EVERY ACT OF LABOR, FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE INVENTOR TO THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSEMBLY LINE `DAY LABORER,' EMBODIES ARTICULATED AND TACIT COMPONENTS, QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DIMENSIONS. The more "skilled" the laborer, the more COMPLEX the mixture is between these quantitative and qualitative dimensions. You simply cannot reduce the entire equation of human labor to the quantitative sphere, while completely ignoring the tacit skills, the "know how," the SOCIO-epistemic context of each laborer. As for the `Aristotelian' distinction between "pure contemplation" and "beast"-like production, neither the Austrians NOR I, recognize such a distinction. I NEVER maintained that there are "different kinds of people, the superior sort who are fit to think and rule and the inferior sort who must labour for them." My statement about a "difference in kind" between the INVENTOR and the "NUTS-AND- BOLTS" tightener on the assembly line did not carry with it any moral judgment about the relative value of either; it was a mere observation that the inventor's "skills" or "know how" could not be explained as - or reduced to - a simple aggregate of "nut and bolt" tightening. 10,000 turns on nuts and bolts does not produce Henry Ford. And my evaluation of Henry Ford AS A CAPITALIST or AS AN INVENTOR or AS A PERSON proceeds in terms that differ considerably from his "labor value," whatever the hell that means! Paul is certainly correct to note that a complex industrial product is the result of a long, evolving train of SOCIAL products. But, once again, these social products are not simply QUANTITATIVE. Nor do I believe that the differences which I've noted between quantity and quality pertain strictly to the opposition of "abstract and concrete labour." They pertain to SKILLS, in WHATEVER trade or profession. The labor theory AS A THEORY OF RELATIVE PRICES should be abandonned NOT because it is a "levelers manifesto," but because it is invalid. You might wish to entertain the theory as a "moral-philosophical" one, as Doug Henwood suggests, but it simply doesn't work as a theory of relative prices. Finally, while I sympathize with charges of "class bias," AND DON'T TAKE THESE CHARGES LIGHTLY, I must remind Paul that such charges should be levelled with all due care. The goal of radical social science is, as Marx maintained, BOTH "critical and revolutionary." To be critical is NOT to adopt "Lysenkoism," simply because `bourgeois' scientists don't accept it. - 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