Rakesh's post 6337 takes up my response to Fred, where I ask: >>1) What is the "law of value" in this context, and what mechanism assures >>its "law-like" operation at the macro level, understood as analytically >>prior (otherwise it could not be "taken as given") to the determination of >>prices at the micro level? And if there is no clear mechanism, why should >>this be considered a valuable or valid contribution? Rakesh, you write. >Gil, analysis is fine and much needed in fact, but you have to do >some work to understand the other side, I thought that's what I *was* doing. What better way to gain understanding than to ask questions? >except when they question >your points if this is to be a list for the development of Marx's own >theory. I think questions of the sort I'm asking now are appropriate, if not called for, precisely because this list *is* devoted to the "development of Marx's own theory," if it is accepted that Marx is not a deity, and thus his theory is open to refinement or revision, as theoretical investigation dictates. Otherwise we're just exegetes and disciples, no? >Also it would be helpful that if in this discussion that you don't >come across as suggesting that the tradition that you represent has >everything worked out-- I realize I have a tendency to make my theoretically points rather emphatically--a communicational flaw I'm trying to modify--but I've never at any time suggested that I, or the "tradition I represent" (what tradition is that, I wonder) have "everything worked out." Quite the contrary--I feel I'm an engaged in an ongoing process of figuring out what's what in Marxian and related areas of political economy, a significant portion of which effort is pursued here on OPE-L. >there is not a clear statement on Marx's >theory of money and general crisis from Roemer and you. I don't see why there needs to be. Per the above, I've never represented myself as offering a comprehensive revision of Marx's theory. Before that can be done, groundwork must be done on the basic tenets or starting points of his argument, which is what I've focused on. >So just among the people here on OPE-L you have to >recognize that your hard questioning of others [Why call it "hard" questioning? Why not "interesting" or "curious" or "intendedly development-provoking" questioning? Shouldn't we all be asking questions of this sort on the list?] > can come across as a >refusal to turn the analysis inward on the gaping holes in the >tradition that you represent. Again with the caveat that I don't really know what "tradition" I "represent", I certainly have not "refused" to criticize the problems of analytical Marxism! For instance, I've written papers criticizing Roemer's (non-) treatment of the labor-labor power distinction. But isn't whether I do this or not entirely beside the point? Aren't the sorts of questions I've posed legitimate and relevant in themselves, whether or not I've engaged in this sort of "inward" criticism? > yes, you think there are big problems >with chapter 5 and value analysis is unneeded for the theory of >exploitation and/or illogica due to the putative transformation >problem (Not "due to" the putative transformation problem--the problems I see with value analysis run much deeper than that, and are encountered much more immediately in Capital.) And for what it's worth, since you've paired me with Roemer, no part of my critique of Marx's analysis in Chapters 4-6 in volume I depends in any way on Roemer's work. Roemer's work only suggested to me why a critique was needed, and where to look for it in Marx's writing. >(ha!no one can make the two equalities stick!!). You think >Andrew K can't do basic math. Huh? No, I think he does basic math just fine. > Everyone is familiar with your judgement. I have come to doubt that strenuously, in light of how my "judgments" are represented, but again that's beside the point of the present inquiry. > But what we have not heard from you is any kind of critical analysis >of your own system that you tell us takes us past Marx's Al Magest >(is that the Arabic for Ptolemy's great work or Euclid's) to the >Copernican world of John Roemer. See above. For what it's worth, I think the jury is still very much out on whether Roemer is the Copernicus to Marx's Ptolemy. >To tell you the truth, I think many people here think the problems >are so grave and obvious in analytical marxism--and analytical >marxists are so unwilling to come to grips with the obvious--that >it's a waste of time to criticize their interpretations. If so, I think that is a really dreadful and counterproductive case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Granting entirely that analytical Marxism has not yet established a complete alternative to Marx's theoretical edifice, it might nevertheless be capable of generating relevant insights with respect to specific aspects of that edifice. For example, nothing Marx wrote in Capital *rules out* a priori the conditions of exchange on which Roemer's "general theory of exploitation" is based, and many of Roemer's assumptions--e.g., self-interested behavior, negligible mobility costs--are explicitly embraced by Marx at one point or another. So I wonder: what do you find to be the "grave and obvious" problems with analytical Marxism? >For example >in Roemer, ed. volume I think the only systematic treatment of crisis >is Przeworski's wage squeeze kind of theory but such theory has much >difficulty accounting for movements in the profit rate, and Fred has >argued that his theory does not suffer from the same problems. Granting the former point entirely, this suggests not that analytical marxism has "grave and obvious" flaws, but that its theoretical program is as yet incomplete, doesn't it? On the latter point, perhaps so, but does anybody else but Fred argue that Fred's theory does not suffer from these problems? >In terms of this question, I think we should emphasize--as I have >said in another context--how Marx's theory extends Ricardo's critique >of the adding up theory of price (Duncan suggested to me that I pay >careful attention to Dobb's summary here, and II Rubin is very >helpful too). So for Ricardo *the total value* of the product is >given in advance, so any increase at the micro level of the price of >labor (wages) will invariably lead to an inverse change in the so >called price of capital (profit). > >Of course in terms of Marx's price of production theory, one >capital's ability to beat off the average rate of profit does not >necessarily add more surplus value to the system but rather >redistributes a given magnitude of value that is fixed prior to >distribution. > >This complicates the theory of counter-tendencies for some >counter-tendencies beat off fall in the average rate of profit by >adding to the surplus value in the system as a whole (say a system >wide rise in s/v) while other counter-tendencies stave off the fall >in the rate of profit for some capitals at the expense of others. > > >But total value (i say total value instead of surplus value) coming >before price and price changes in themselves not changing that total >value seem to be pretty basic to Marxian theory. Let's pursue that point a second. Do you accept the possibility that profit-seeking capitalists would choose among available production techniques based on relative prices of inputs (so as to minimize costs)? And if so, since the choice of production techniques determines the direct and indirect abstract labor requirements for production, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that prices "come before" total value? This is why I would >hold total value=total direct price=total price of production in a >complete transformation if one were in fact so needed. > >I am not saying that this is correct. But surely if you want to >criticize the analytical priority given to value, you should say why >Ricardo and Marx did just that in the course of critiquing the adding >up or cost of production theory of price and then tell us why this is >the wrong way to go. Well, I have, in detail, and on this list, but again I think that's beside the point. If the questions I've posed are legitimate and relevant, aren't they worth answering whatever else I've said or not said on other topics? >As for the law of value, I don't think anything too complicated is >meant other than economic magnitudes (the sum of prices of >production) are determined by abstract labor time >expenditures--though of course for Marx indirectly. I'd like to pursue this a bit more if you don't mind: in your reading, is it only the (weighted, I presume) *sum* of prices of production that are "determined" by abstract labor time expenditures? Not, say, individual prices of production? And on what grounds are prices of production held to be "determined" by SNLT? The grounds Marx gives in Vol. I, Ch. 1? Gil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST