[ show plain text ]
There have been so many interesting recent posts in the discussion of
value-form theory that I could spend a whole week working on replies.
I wish I could! But classes start next week and my next month will be
hellish. I will keep up the best I can. This is a partial reply to
Nicky's (2125) on the "Steedman critique" and the subsequent discussion.
1. Nicky raises another interesting question about value-form (VF)
theory: its response to the infamous "Steedman critique". Nicky
summarizes the "Steedman critique" as the charge that Marx's
labor-embodied theory of value is both "inconsistent and unnecessary".
Nicky suggests that VF folks accept the "Steedman critique", and interpret
this as another blow against the "labor embodied" interpretation of Marx's
concept of abstract labor, and another reason for preferring VF theory.
2. I would like to emphasize that the "Steedman critique" has to do
specifically with Marx's theory of prices of production and the rate of
profit in Part 2 of Vol. 3. Steedman (following many others) argues that
Marx's theory of prices of production is "inconsistent" (i.e. failed to
transform inputs) and "unnecessary" (i.e. "redundant" in the determination
of prices of production and the rate of profit). Steedman argues further
that Sraffian theory is therefore the preferred theory of prices of
production and the rate of profit.
In relation to our earlier discussion, the "Steedman critique" is a
QUANTITATIVE critique. It has to do with Marx's quantitative theory of
prices of production. Steedman's question is: which theory provides a
better quantitative theory of prices of production and the rate of profit?
3. Now, how does VF theory respond to the "Steedman critique"?
As best I can tell, VF theory does NOT respond to the "Steedman critique"
by presenting a better quantitative theory of prices of production and the
rate of profit. Indeed, so far as I know (please of course correct me if
I am wrong), VF theory does not provide ANY alternative quantitative
theory of prices of production and the rate of profit. Saying that the
determination of prices of production is "systemic" does not provide an
alternative quantitative theory. No equation is presented for the precise
determination of prices of production.
Michael W. says in (2188): "VFT does indeed contain no specific theory of
relative prices ..."
Thus it appears that VF theory responds to the "Steedman critique" by
dropping Steedman's question altogether. Once again, VF theory appears
not to be very interested in quantitative questions. In the case of the
quantitative theory of prices of production, VF theory does not appear to
provide one at all.
Michael goes on to say that VF theory "may therefore subsume some variant
of orthodox price theory (neo-classical or post-Keynesian) set within the
context of a value-form system."
Presumably then VF theory is also compatible with the Sraffian theory of
prices of production, right? If so, then the VF theory accepts not only
the "Steedman critique", but also Steedman's quantitative theory of prices
of production and the rate of profit. It seems to me that this is not a
response to the "Steedman critique", but rather a capitulation to it.
For me, this is not a reason for preferring VF theory.
4. I have presented in several papers a different response to the
"Steedman critique". I argue that the "Steedman critique" misunderstands
Marx's logical method in the determination of the rate of profit and
prices of production. The "Steedman critique" attributes to Marx's
theory the logical method of Sraffa's theory (i.e. linear production
theory), following an interpretation that started with Meek and Dobb in
the 1960s.
But I argue that this is a misunderstanding of Marx's logical method,
on two key points: (1) the determination of aggregate magnitudes and the
general rate of profit prior to the determination of individual magnitudes
and prices of production, and (2) the initial givens in Marx's theory of
surplus-value (Vol. 1) and prices of production (Vol. 3) are quantities of
money-capital, not physical quantities of inputs and outputs, as in
Sraffian theory and in the Sraffian interpretation of Marx's theory.
Once Marx's own logical method is better understood, then the "Steedman
critique" simply does not apply to Marx's theory. Marx did not "forget to
transform the inputs"; and Marx's value analysis is not "redundant", but
instead entirely necessary WITHIN A DIFFERENT LOGICAL METHOD (value
analysis determines the rate of profit, which is then taken as given in
the determination of prices of production). Instead, the "Steedman
critique" applies only to the misguided attempt to interpret Marx's theory
in terms of Sraffa's theory.
I look forward to further discussion.
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:08 EST