In 3947 Paul C wrote: >Note that the definition of value in vol 1 is done in abstraction from >changes in technology over time. False. From the beginning, Marx emphasizes that an increase in the amount of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in the magnitude of value; so, the same change in productivity which increases the fruitfulness of labor, and therefore the amount of use values produced by it, also brings about a reduction in the value of the increased total amount, if it cuts down the total amount of labour time necessary to produce the use values. That is, from the beginning value theory is not enlisted to formalize Adam Smith's insights into hidden hand or to set up a delusive system of n millions of equations into which we need only introduce n millions of constants to calculate with mathematical accuracy the price of a definite individual commodity at any time. Rather by holding the value of money constant, Marx can explore the working of the law of value as it appears in the general *development* of prices of commodities, in which the continuous depreciation in value of the commodities, effected by ever increasing productivity of labor consequent upon the accumulation of capital, constitutes the decisive factor. The final purpose of this of course is to reveal the economic law of motion of modern society and that means at the same the law of its historical development. See Karl Korsch, Karl Marx, p. 153-4 and Grossmann's dynamics book. >In vol 1 a change in technology >changes values, but there is not systematic treatment of >the effect of a continuous rate of change of technology on >the definition of commodity values. This is what the whole chapter on relative surplus value is about. How else could the rate of exploitation rise if real wages at the very least remain constant? >It strikes me as illegitimate to try and reconcile prices of production >computed on a temporal basis with value defined on a non temporal >basis. Value is never defined on a non temporal basis; it is only held constant for the purposes of simplifying the construction of the reproduction schema which are meant to show the possibility of growth without a permanent consumption deficit. I will parenethically note here that even if Marx has failed here for the reasons Paul Z has noted, then all this means is that a scheme in constant values cannot demonstrate this possibility, not that capital accumulation must be haunted by a permanent inability to realize produced surplus value (see Grossmann's critique of Luxemburg). Moreover, you do not respond to my post by cutting and answering, as Ajit has said we should. There I give you clear evidence that in Capital 3, ch 9 Marx does *not* assume constant values or prices of production. > >Once you deal with continuous rates of change of labour productivity >then you are stepping outside the theoretical space on which the original >theory of value was based. Not Marx's original theory of value. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST