Date: 24 Nov 95 03:12:21 EST From: "Chris, London" <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com> Subject: Value: the 3 J's debate While I have not been able to follow all the details, I very much welcome that John, Jim and Juan have been continuing to slog out the value of the Marxist concept of the law of value. My standpoint is that we need a non-reductionist, non-mechanistic rediscovery of the relevance of the LOV for commodity-based exchange value, *within the wider global set of all socially valued human relations* (value in its widest sense). As hopefully a reasonable intelligent non-economist I would like to risk quadrangulating briefly in the debate. I welcome John's willingness to concentrate on the issues, and to ignore some of Juan's sharper remarks personally. I also welcome as good practice his attempt to go Back to the Beginning to redefine more accurately the problem over which the argument is taking place. However I suspect there needs to be more clarification of exactly what the problem is that people are arguing over. John starts his 9-point half-time summary as follows: >>>>>>>>> From: "John R. Ernst" <ernst-AT-pipeline.com> Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 20:35:32 -0500 Subject: Back to the Beginning 1. Ok, guys, Jim and Juan, let's not get lost. I'll assume full responsibility for taking us down the blind alley of index numbers and the like. What I propose is that we go back to where we started and determine our concerns. 2. What's basically at issue is the notion of a falling rate of profit in Marx's work. What I am saying is that nearly everyone who reads Marx, using the common definitions of value, concludes that Marx is wrong. <<<<< Now I thought, John, that it was accepted in previous debates on this list that what people were arguing about was Marx's description not of the falling rate of profit but of the *tendency* of the rate of profit to fall. Further that Marx and his followers recognise countervailing tendencies. So that the net result may be a fluctuating pattern of rate of profit resulting from many different factors. I think the problem should be defined differently at a higher macro level to that at which you bravely attempt to pitch it: That Marx's general and concrete description of the laws of working of the capitalist economy describes with remarkable relevance still today, a system that in his time appeared for various reasons likely to become more and more polarised, so that increasingly frequent crises would herald a total qualitative change to another system. The problem however for us is that on re-reading, Marx's economics also describes a system that can accommodate to social pressures for example over factory legislation and the division of exchange value between workers and capitalist accumulation. Marx describes a complex dynamic self-reproducing self-perpetuating system, in which one but only one of the motions, is a *tendency* of the rate of profit to fall, but there are many other tendencies too. The problem is paradoxically that if we understand more fully, more dialectically and more materialistically, the workings of the capitalist economic system and why it is so resilient, that is the necessary theoretical condition tostart bringing it politically, under social control, and in the widest sense, social ownership. Is that not the problem? Chris, London. --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005