Hi Andy, I've since found the relevant quote from Marx: "Thus, although in selling their commodities the capitalists of the various spheres of production recover the value of the capital consumed in their production, they do not secure the surplus-value, and consequently the profit, created in their own sphere by the production of these commodities... So far as profits are concerned, the various capitalists are just so many stockholders in a stock company in which the shares of profit are uniformly divided per 100." (Marx 1894) I would actually let Marx get away with this to some degree if he was talking about what I call the realisation problem--the problem of converting surplus-value into monetary profit--rather than simply trying to justify a numeric fudge to sidestep the transformation problem. But as it stands? Sorry, I simply can't take it seriously. Steve At 10:44 AM 11/6/2000 -0000, you wrote: >Dear Ian, Steve and all, > >Brief comments below: > > >On 6 Nov 2000, at 8:26, Ian.Hunt wrote: > >> The harshness of the language does not matter much. As to the theoretical >> issue, the question is whether the capacity of the capitalist system to >> extract surplus labour is a more fundamental feature of the sytem than how >> comepiteively profit is distributed among capitalists. If it is, then the >> total of surplus value (which is given by the rate of surplus value and >> employment) is determined 'prior' to whether there is an equal rate of >> profit. ( an analysis that assumes varying industry rates of profits which >> may or may not converge depending on competitiveness conditions would be >> more general than one that assumes a uniform rate of profit). > >But then everything rests on precisely what you mean by 'more >fundamental'. > >Steve, if you accept that social structures are reproduced and >transformed by individual activity, but not created by that activity, >then where is the absurdity in postulating that SV be determined >prior to its distribution? If you don't accept this then how do you >see the relation between social structure and individual activity? > >> >> On the question Steve has raised about labour poweer and machines, this is, >> I think, essentially the same point that Brody made many years ago, that >> there is nothing in terms of productivity to distinguish labour from any >> other basic commodity (commodity used directly or indirectluy in the >> production of every other). Steedman and Wolff also emphasised this point: >> you can have steel or wheat theory of value on the same footing as a >> labour theory of value. In a sense it is obvious that surplus does not come >> entirely from labour: how productive labour is, that is whether it is >> possible to have a surplus at all and how big that surplus is, depends not >> only on how many hours workers work but on the the resources and techniques >> of prouduction that they use. > >Just because people have made the arguement doesn't mean it is >correct. I have argued that labour is fundamentally different from >machinery precisely in terms of the *nature* of contribution to >production, it's *qualitative* characteristics. Labour has a universal >and creatively transformative character. Machines don't. Further >this difference underlies Marx's argument on exploitation, on my >argment. Thus, if you have in mind the quantitative aspect of >'productivity' only, you need to make this explicit, and you need to >argue why quantity is all that matters here ... but may be I have >misunderstood your argument.... > >> >> I think labour can be distinguished from machines only because labour-power >> produces its use value, labour, only because of the control exercised over >> labourers under capitalist social relations of production: these social >> relations of production are themselves, in that sense, a productive force. >> It is because of this 'contradiction' - in the case of labour power, social >> relations of production are an immediate factor inherent in the productive >> force of labour - that we can speak of a capitalist system of production. I >> always thought Steedman's argument, that you could have capitalism without >> labour, was funny - not that you can't have a system of production or even >> commodity production without labour (the owners would be independent >> propritors 'petty-bourgeois' of a marvellously productive mechanised >> resource, just like letting the sun shine on plants to make one's living) - >> but that it is not capitalism if it is not a system through which need >> drives exploitation of labourers by capitalist owners of means of >> production. > >So you pick out a qualitative characteristic of labour. But how does >this charactersitic serve to *substantiate* Marx's argument that SV >is soley down to labour? Hence Marx's argument on exploitation? >To do that we need to determine tha causal processes at work >which entail that the contribution of a machine in production is >covered by its cost price, whereas the contribution of labour-power >isn't. > >> >> On the point that capitalism is 'disaggregated', I think it is and it >> isn't: clearly it is organised on the basis of private property but this >> gives rise to the problem that every theorist strives to solve: how does a >> private property system cohere? Capitalism is in fact a more aggregated >> system of production than before it: as Engels used to say, we have a >> 'contradiction' between the socialisation of production under capitalism >> and private ownership. > >Yes, here you touch upon my question to Steve re 'social >structures' and 'individuals' above > >Thanks, > >Andy > >> Cheers, >> Ian >> >> >Hi Fred, >> > >> >Yes, I agree that I used harsh language, and I stand by it. >> > >> >As you put it, this argument is that "the total amount is LOGICALLY >> >DETERMINED prior to the determination of the individual >> >parts". My systems-oriented mind can't help but ask 'by what mechanism?'. >> > >> >To me, this argument is as specious as the one Friedman used to define >> >uncertainty, that individual incomes are unknown, but aggregate income is >> >known and never changes. >> > >> >Both propositions are balderdash, irrespective of the politics of the >> >authors who uttered them. Unless these 'variables' are determined in some >> >aggregate fashion by some meaningful system, and then split up between >> >individuals, then the alleged mechanism is nothing other than a nonsense >> >abstraction used to sustain a nonsense theory--again, whether that theory >> >be marxian or neoclassical. >> > >> >In other words, if capitalism is a disaggregated system of production and >> >distribution, then you have to work from the units up, and not from the top >> >down. This is not an argument for methodological individualism of course, >> >nor a denial of the fact that perceptions and magnitudes at the systemic >> >level affect its components. >> > >> >cheers, >> >Steve >> >At 05:00 PM 11/3/2000 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >> >>This is a belated response to Steve K's (4371). >> >> >> >>On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Steve Keen wrote: >> >> >> >>> Sorry Rakesh, >> >>> >> >>> But I regard this particular argument of Marx's: >> >>> >> >>> "As Fred says, the macro magnitudes are determined prior to, and are >> >>> determinative of, the micro magnitudes of the rate of profit and the >> >>> prices of production (see also Blake, 1939; Mattick, 1983)." >> >>> >> >>> (for once I can't quickly locate the original by Marx, but I do know it) >> >>> >> >>> as one of the greatest kludges he ever attempted to pull. That capitalism, >> >>> which is inherently a competitive class system, should somehow operate as a >> >>> true collective of capitalists as to the division of surplus-value, I >> >>> regard as pure nonsense. >> >> >> >> >> >>Steve, this is harsh language. Are you saying that it is logically >> >>impermissible to assume that the total amount of surplus-value produced in >> >>the economy as a whole is determined prior to the division of this total >> >>amount into individual parts? If so, on the basis of what grounds? >> >> >> >>Marx did not argue that capitalists consciously act to collect all the >> >>surplus-value before they divide it up. But rather that the total amount >> >>is LOGICALLY DETERMINED prior to the determination of the individual >> >>parts. The reason why Marx determined the total amount first is that, >> >>according to his theory, all the individual parts of surplus-value have >> >>the same source: the surplus labor of workers. Capitalists certainly >> >>compete over this division of the total surplus-value; but that does not >> >>preclude the logical determination of the total prior to its >> >>division. >> >> >> >>Marx called capitalists "hostile brothers": they are brothers in that they >> >>all live off the surplus labor of workers, but they certainly have their >> >>hostilities over the division of this booty. >> >> >> >>Why is this method of determination not permissible? >> >> >> >>Comradely, >> >>Fred >> >> >> >> >> >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/ >> >> Associate Professor Hunt, >> Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, >> Flinders University >> > > 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 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST