This message from me was initially bounced because of a change to my
internal email system.
Cheers,
Steve
>To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
>From: Steve Keen <s.keen@cooper.uws.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: [OPE-L:5642] Re: the infinite regression critique
>In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105221128480.31195-100000@ricardo.ecn.wfu.e
> du>
>References: <001401c0e2bd$72b16aa0$3f082e3f@hppav>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Allin,
>
>Think again on this one please: the
>point is that, no matter how hard you attempt to reduce any commodity to
>labour alone, there will always be a commodity residue. It is not the issue
>of finding the limit to a convergent series, but the impossibility of
>eliminating one component of a causal process.
>
>The same procedure could of course be carried out using capital rather than
>labour--reducing all today's labour to its commodity inputs, and so on, ad
>infinitum. But the same process would *never* be able to show that
>commodities were produced by commodities alone--there would *always* be a
>non-zero labour residue.
>
>The point of the critique is that, if value is somehow the "essence" of
>capitalism/commodities, then that essence must contain both commodities and
>labour. Arun Bose took this critique to its (typically ignored) zenith in
>"Marx on inequality and exploitation". His conclusion was rather similar to
>the 'heretical' one I reach:
>
>"labour is never the only or the main 'source of value' in any system which
>is defined as capitalist on the basis of a reasonable set of axioms...
>Labour is not, immediately or ultimately, the only or main source of price,
>surplus or profit... Labour and commodities are the two sources of wealth,
>value, price, of surplus value and profit." (Bose 1980)
>
>Cheers,
>Steve
>At 01:32 AM 5/23/01 Wednesday, you wrote:
> >Jerry quotes Rakesh (quoting Carchedi, quoting Joan Robinson!),
> >
> > > I think Ajit is saying that Hegelian (sic) value theory has no
> > > answer to Joan Robinson's challenge (dubbed the infinite
> > > regression critique by Carchedi): "the constant capital was
> > > produced in the past by labour time working with then pre-existing
> > > constant capital and so on, ad infinitum backwards. It therefore
> > > cannot be reduced simply to a number of labour hours that can be
> > > added to the net value of the current year. And there is no
> > > advantage in doing so." quoted in Carchedi, 1990, p. 96.
> >
> >And asks:
> >
> > > What other answers have been offered in the literature to the
> > > "infinite regression critique"?
> >
> >This critique seems trivial, dumb. It's hard to believe that Joan
> >Robinson didn't know how to find the limit of a convergent geometric
> >series.
> >
> >Allin.
>
>Home Page: http://bus.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
> http://www.debunking-economics.com
> http://www.stevekeen.net
>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.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
http://www.debunking-economics.com
http://www.stevekeen.net
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT