Jerry, I'm rather lucky that my PC crashed before I could reply to this, because it gave me the chance to take a few deep breaths. I am accustomed to asking others on this list to "read my lips", but not you. I choose my words fairly carefully in my posts, and I would appreciate if you would read them carefully. I did NOT say that "qualitative issues lie outside of Marx's analysis". I said that "qualitative issues form no part of his CORE analysis" (even that statement I qualified. And of course, my statement was in contrast to the neoclassicals--which further qualifies it). But perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough. By "core", I meant something like "foundation concepts from which he derived his pivotal initial arguments on the source of value and determination of prices". I hope that's clearer. So I agree with everything you posted about the role of quality, but it makes no difference to my argument, or to the difference between us over this initial issue: whether use-value can be quantitative in Marx's CORE (as defined above) analysis, and whether I had or had not found at least prima facie textual evidence to support that--for example, the statement that "use-value and exchange-value are intrinsically incommensurable MAGNITUDES". Now, from the next segment of your reply, it appears that you don't regard this or any other textual excerpt I found as conclusive or even suggestive of this interpretation. If so, I can't convince you, so as with so much else on this discussion list, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Cheers, Steve At 08:15 AM 3/17/01 -0500, you wrote: >Re Steve K's [5189]: > > > If Marx were a neoclassical, then it could of > > course be a qualitative concept. But since > > qualitative issues form no part of his core > > analysis (except when he reduces qualitative > > differences to quantitative ones, as in the > > reduction of skilled to unskilled labour--of > > which more later), to become an issue in > > Marx's political economy, use-value has to > > somehow in some circumstances be quantitative. > >I strongly disagree with your premise that >qualitative issues lie outside of Marx's analysis. >Indeed, Marx's philosophy and method of abstraction >embodies a tension and dialectic between quality >and quantity. Rather than lying outside of his >theory of capitalism, qualitative issues are at the >very heart of that understanding. To miss this point >is to confuse Marx with the political economists that >he was critiquing. E.g. he critisized Ricardo for >conflating exchange-value with value and thereby >conceiving of value as merely quantity. By doing so, >Ricardo was not able to comprehend how the >value relationship is an expression of the social >relations of production associated with capitalism. >This internalization of quality and its dynamic >tension with quantity into the subject matter is >an expression of Marx's historical materialism. >Yet, this same integration of quality and quantity >was well understood by Hegel and Hegelians of >various kinds. > > > Marx's special perspective on use-value arises > > from its role in the circuit of capital, M-C-M. > > Here he is quite emphatic that use-value > > *MUST* be the explanation of the source of > > surplus value. This can only occur if, in this > > realm, use-value is quantitative. > >All that is required is, rather, that the *commodity- >form* has both qualitative and quantitative >dimensions. Use-value, in order words, need not >be quantitative but value must come to be >expressed quantitatively even though it incorporates >a qualitative side (i.e. the "socially necessary" in >SNLT). > > > > Conceptualising use-value as purely qualitative > > means it has no role in economics. > >Why? > >Political economy, at least Marx's and Marxist >political economy, is not merely about quantity. >*If the subject matter of economics is quantity >alone then, indeed, it is merely an applied branch >of mathamatics!* Unfortunately, many economists >have come to view economics in precisely these >terms but it stands in stark contrast both to Marxian >theories and to heterodox theories generally. > >In solidarity, Jerry Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30, School of Economics and Finance UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY LOCKED BAG 1797 PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797 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 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT