On 2 Jun 2001, at 9:17, Gerald_A_Levy wrote:
> * _even if_ Marx's theory of value (and/or variations
> thereof) are shown to be logically coherent and
> consistent, what does that tell us? In other words:
> so what?
Imo, the gist of Marx's (correct) answer runs as follows:
There is a 'logical contradiction' between the abstract law of value
and the concrete manifestation of that law: The *abstract* law is
one of determination by labour, but profit equalisation ensures that
labour times and prices are not proportional at the level of the
*concrete*.
CRUCIALLY, the logical contradiction means there can never be a
'logically coherent' and true theory of value by the standards of
'analytical logic'.
Ricardo is to be congratulated for making the contradiction as stark
as possible, and for refusing to abandon the law. His lack of a
dialectical logic left him floundering at how to deal with the
contradiction however, he simply tried to play down the concrete
contradiction of the law of value, instead of facing up to the
implications of the contradiction.
According to Marx, the solution is not to abandon the law, but to
develop it. This development flows from a grasp of the *nature* of
the labour that is the substance of value (it is *non-sensuous*,
hence it must develop an appearance form). In terms of the OPEL
debate, this view means that the various people who, in many
different ways, abandon the 'LTV' (from VFT to Steve K):
1) have good reason - there is a contradiction - but nevertheless
2) do not have a grasp of *what exchange value measures*; ie. do
not know *what value is*. This leads, whatever 'theory' is favoured,
to a problem of struggling to fathom what this highly abstract
theory / model (for example, a Sraffian model) actually implies for
concrete reality. Many false ('simplifying') assumptions are made
and it is difficult to relax them whilst simultaneously retaining a
grasp of the systematic determination of value, surplus value, etc.
(this statement holds for VFT given the quantitative problems that it
seems to have)
Imo, the work of Ben Fine and others, shows what difference a
grasp of value makes to concrete work. Fine has worked on many,
many concrete issues, always stressing his debt to the LTV, and
achieved novel, insightful results.
Re the notion of 'infinite logically plausible theories': What do you
mean by 'logically plausible'? This is a very curious phrase.
Re discussing more concrete things: What you say is fair enough
but I think the reason that abstract issues (eg TP) are discussed is
because they have massive implications for more concrete work.
For example, I think the fundamental reason that Fine has a novel
theory of various concrete things is because of his novel take on
value (hence on the TRPF and the TP).
Best wishes,
Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT