Steve, Rakesh, and Paul Z: I hesitate to offer yet another endorsement of Steve Keen's arguments, but feel obliged to chime-in after reading Paul Zarembka's demarcation rule (suggesting that Steve should take his ball and play elsewhere). Giving centrality to the capitalist mode of production (and therefore its exploitative class relations) does not lead, inexorably, to attributing surplus value production exclusively to wage labor (or make solving the transformation problem of overriding importance for Marxists). First, the wage relation is itself reproduced by non-wage work and other antecendent conditions (e.g., those set and held in place by the family, by education, politics, spiritual, cultural, and other non-market, institutions, etc.). Exploitation (of surplus value) can be just as effectively resisted on these (non-wage) territories as on the factory floor. Denying the importance of these non-wage relations (to surplus value production) deprives us of access to vital sites of political struggle -- for the kind of narrow, doctrinal, economically-reductionist reasons that (rightly) has resulted in a marginalization of some brands of Marxism in recent years. Second, Marx himself never actually refers to his "labor theory of value" (surely this should be a caution to those who make it central to their notion of Marxism?) We live in social formations -- not pure capitalism -- a conjunction of foetal and vestigal modes of production. In some nation states, the capitalism mode of production may be on the acendency (China) or even dominant (maybe the U.S). Whatever the circumstance, EVEN if we confine ourselves to addressing capitalist exploitative relations, we must also face it's allies (e.g., patriarchy, race). Third, it follows from the above that the wage-profit relation is but one manifestation of exploitation, and that the terrain of (Marxist) struggle must be viewed more broadly to encompass the full panapoly of alienated experience under capitalism (E.G., as consumers, students, subjects of race, gender, political, and environmental alienation). For some Marxists, this has led to a (re) formulation of the labor theory of value (sic.), to a 'value theory of labor'. The latter gives emphasis to all areas of life under capitalism that are affected, and effect, capitalist relations of exploitation -- not just the wage bargain.. [Steve: please send me a copy of the attachment as well]. Fraternally, ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Keen <s.keen@uws.edu.au> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 4:09 AM Subject: [OPE-L:4234] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part Two of Volume III of Capital > OK Rakesh, I'll send you the present chapter as an attachment later. > > My criticism of the labor theory of value in that chapter has nothing to do > with eigenvalues, etc., as it happens. In the chapter repeat the Steedman > critique, detail Bose's neglected critique, and then cover my own, which is > based on my reading of Marx's dialectical philosophy. Since that leads me > to reject the premise that labor is the only source of surplus value, the > whole transformation problem debate--from T-B on to TSS--is an irrelevance > for me. > > Cheers, > Steve > At 20:27 22/10/00 -0700, you wrote: > >re Steve's 4228 > > > >>Oh well, one last time then. > > > >So Steve you have given up on trying to communicate to the > >intelligent non economist if I may indulge myself. Here I am > >discussing the logical criticism of Marx at the level you present it > >in your book and now you respond to me with this. Truly remarkable. > >Why not stand by your book which is at the level of Allin's simple > >reproduction transformation exercise. > > > > > > > >>Firstly, you were wrong to dismiss linear algebra. > > > >OK, it's more than an optimisation technique. I look forward to learning why. > > > > > > > > > >> As it happens, linear > >>algebra is an important tool in the analysis of dynamic systems. This is > >>because the stability properties of equilibria of a dynamic system are > >>determined by the linear component of the Taylor expansion of the system. > >>If you really want to do dynamics--rather than simply propose numerical > >>examples which are "almost just right", then you will need linear algebra > >>(at least to second year level) as well as calculus and differential > >>equations. > > > > > >But you had simple numerical examples of what's wrong in Marx; then I > >question the assumptions in the example, the relevance of any > >conclusions which can be drawn from such equilibrium or simple > >reproduction examples, and you no longer want to communicate in a way > >I can understand you. > > > >Do me a favor since your Marx chapter is no longer on your website. > >Please forward to me your criticism of Marx's transformation error in > >your new book. . Then I will give you my reply. Then you can tell me > >why it's off base because the eigenvalues won't work out for the > >dynamic model in terms of which I am implicitly criticizing you. > > > >OK. > > > >Thanks, Rakesh > > > > > Dr. Steve Keen > Senior Lecturer > Economics & Finance > University of Western Sydney Macarthur > Building 11 Room 30, > Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown > PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560 > Australia > s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 > Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 > Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/ >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST