[ show plain text ]
I'm going to really stick my neck out here and note the following. While
*fully* agreeing with Gil on the irrelevance of the "constant c/v ratio"
proof, I prefer to highlight his observation:
>I'm sure we were all introduced to the Marxian problematic of surplus
>value with the suggestion that there was something meaningful in the
>exercise of demonstrating that surplus value could exist *even if* all
>commodities exchange at their respective values, the way out of the
>resulting dilemma being the distinction between the use and exchange
> >values of labor power
My contention is that this "way out" leads much further than Marxists
realise. The same distinction logically holds between the use and exchange
values of the means of production--as evidenced by the quote I referred
Rakesh to from the Grundrisse. With that logic, both commodities and labor
are potential sources of surplus value, and the price/value dilemma
evaporates.
Of course, I expect absolutely no agreement with this proposition!
Cheers,
Steve
>From: Gil Skillman <gskillman@MAIL.WESLEYAN.EDU>
>Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
>To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
>Subject: [OPE-L:3106] Fwd: Re: RE: starting points
>Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:27:48 -0400
>
>
>Michael writes:
>
> >I would just like to pose an apparently simple question into the complex
>and
> >interesting debate between Fred and Gil. Gil writes:
> >
> >>there is no useful sense in which
> >> price-value equivalence constitutes a necessary, or even economically
> >> relevant, starting point for the analysis of capitalist exploitation.
> >>
> >Is price-value equivalence not a relevant starting point for a (sensibly
> >useful) 'even if' argument: 'Even if price-value equivalence holds'
>claims
> >Marx, 'I can derive the conditions of existence for exploitation of
>labour'.
> >And then does it.
> >
> >Or am I missing something?
>
>Elegantly put, Michael. This certainly gets to the crux of the matter.
>What's missing, in response to your question, is a coherent basis for
>believing that price-value equivalence has any analytical relevance
>whatsoever for the phenomenon under discussion. If I were to replace your
>hypothetical "even if" clause above with one of the following: "Even if
>all
>capitalists are the same height,...." or "even if all transactions are
>conducted with fiat rather than commodity money,..." or better yet, "even
>if all capitalists had the same technical conditions of production,..." , I
>imagine that you would be unimpressed with the resulting claim, and
>legitimately so, since none of these "even if" clauses has any apparent
>relevance one way or another to the phenomenon of capitalist exploitation.
>
>Well, price-value equivalence has the same merit as the height of
>capitalists in analyzing the logic of capitalist exploitation: at best it's
>essentially beside the point. It does not correspond to the classical case
>of exchange at "natural prices," it does not correspond to an assumption of
>competitive markets, and it is not logically justified by the observation
>that surplus value cannot arise from price-value disparities, *taken
>alone.*
>
>Indeed, the problem is worse than that: in an important sense, a world
>that
>gives rise to capitalist exploitation is *essentially* one in which
>price-value disparities arise, and as a consequence, focusing on this
>economically meaningless case can--and arguably, does-- induce serious
>apprehensions about the nature and basis of capitalist exploitation.
>
>I realize I'm swimming against the tide of our common educational
>experience
>here. I'm sure we were all introduced to the Marxian problematic of
>surplus
>value with the suggestion that there was something meaningful in the
>exercise of demonstrating that surplus value could exist *even if* all
>commodities exchange at their respective values, the way out of the
>resulting dilemma being the distinction between the use and exchange values
>of labor power. But hindsight shows that this suggestion was fundamentally
>misconceived: it invalidly exalts the analytical status of price-value
>equivalence, and it essentially misrepresents the political economic
>significance of the labor/labor power distinction.
>
>In sum, the case of price-value equivalence is not relevant, let alone
>"sensibly useful," for the analytical task at hand.
>
>Gil
>
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT