Dear Diego, I think you are throwing too much on the list. Too much good stuff, by the way. I think we have to develop one issue at a time. For instance: what are the arguments of Brody's regarding the value of labor power? Is there any empirical work attached to his analysis? What's the reference? This would make for a more substantive discussion. Jerry will certainly organize this debate so as to draw the most out of it. Paulo Cipolla Diego wrote: > I agree with Simon (7028) and Alfredo (7029). Let me try to contribute > to this debate by putting my views in a succint and necessarily > oversimplified manner. I don't think I can *resolve* anything but > contribute to extend the debate. <<There are a > whole host of unresolved issues about how contemporary capitalism > works. > For example: > 1. What determines the value of labour power and wages?>> 1. I think > that in this respect the correct line is Marx-Rubin-Brody. Steeedman > and others have contributed to a certain un-reading of Brody's book by > labelling it as *neo-bortkiewiczian*. It is not of course. For > instance, the problem of the reduction of heterogeneous labor to > homogeneous labor and the value of all labor power is solved in it in > pp. 85ss. > <<2. What determines the value of money?>> 2. I'd like to discuss an > idea. If the value of gold-money is determined like all other > commodities's, why not extend this idea to credit-money? The value of > the commodity *credit money* --don't forget that commodities include > goods and services-- is the labor society needs to reproduce the > entire mass of the monetary assets (or liabilities) of the financial > system. If workers in this sector do not perform their labor, it is > not possible to reproduce the volume of the commodity credit-money > needed by capitalism in order to survive. I think the problem here is > that most people mix up the sphere of circulation (something which is > needed in all branches of the capitalist economy) with the sphere of > trade and finance (where circulation work is needed too: ads, payments > and cash, etc., but where most of the work is also productive: it > creates the credit-money, like work in the gold mines and mints > creates gold-money; both generate surplus value when producing in > capitalist firms and unproductive labor when selling the commodities > produced) . Please, see the incisive analysis in this respect of the > book of Nagels, Jacques (1974): Travail collectif et travail productif > dans l’evolution de la pensee marxiste, Editions de l’Université de > Bruxelles [Trabalho colectivo e trabalho produtivo na evolucao do > pensamento marxista (2 vols.), Prelo, Lisboa, 1975]. > <<3. What is the predominant pattern today of technical progress? Has > it > changed? If so, why?>> 3. I don't think it has changed. Mechanization > and capitalization of the production process is still inside the scope > categorized by Marx as the *automatized system of machinery*. The > technical (tcc) and organic compositions of capital (occ) keep rising, > and the value composition of capital (vcc) shows long fluctuations > around its rising trend. The relationship between occ and vcc is > something like that existing between what conventional economists call > *partial* and *general* equilibrium. > <<4. Why has the rate of profit been rising in major capitalist > economies > since 1982 or so?>> 4. Well, the debate seems to be on the magnitude > of this increase. I think that Anwar Shaikh's (for the USA) and Manuel > Roman's (for Spain: see Roman, Manuel (1997): Growth and Stagnation in > the Spanish Economy, London: Ivory, and above all Roman, Manuel > (2002): Heterodox Views and Cycles in the Spanish Economy, Aldershot: > Ashgate) new estimations of the adjusted (with long-term capacity > utilization) rates of profit are very interesting. I would add that > Marxian theory is not just about the behavior of the rate of profit > but about how the declining trend in the rate of profit makes the mass > of profits stagnate in a recurrent way, and how those fluctuations in > the rate of growth of the mass of profit at its turn makes the rate of > profit draw a fluctuating movement around its declining trend. > <<5. (If you believe in the distinction) what are the consequences of > the > continuous steady rise in unproductive labour over the last third of > the 20C?>> 5. See my point 2. I don't think unproductive labor shows a > rising trend in relative terms. Quite the opposite. Empirical studies > on this issue --like Shaikh & Tonak's, Moseley's or Dumenil's-- fails > to take into account the fact that trade and finance are not > unproductive labor per se. The secular trend in capitalism is towards > the rise in productive labor (it replaces domestic labor by market > labor, one-person-laboring families by all-persons-laboring families, > and so on). This is what has permitted the continuous growth of > accumulation of capital. However, a second aspect of the problem is > the increase in surplus-value-producing labor which produces > surplus-value by means of commodities which are of no use for most > people, at least from a Marxian point of view (arms, money, churches, > luxuries, publicity, ownership vigilance, etc.). Growth has not > probably been checked by this kind of labor (inasmuch as surplus value > has kept growing) but the latter have increased the limits to the > growth in the means of consumption which are really useful to most > people. <<6. Why is inflation so low? (Or, why was it so high in the > 70s and 80s?)>> 6. I don't know, but again Shaikh's *throughput > coefficient* seems to me very suggestive. > <<7. What are the economic mechanisms of imperialism?>> 7. I think we > should reject Lenin's concept of imperialism as a stage in the > development of capitalism. This idea is in fact a bourgeois one (I > mean its roots are in the bourgeois literature). There is no new stage > of capitalism due to monopolies. I look at my Spanish Dictionary to > read: "Imperialimo: tendencia a imponer la dominacion del Estado > propio sobre otro u otros, en el aspecto politico o economico". I > think it is much more accurate than Lenin's definition. Of course, > imperialism has always existed. The specific capitalist imperialism > has existed throughout the entire life of capitalism. I would follow > Engels's suggestion (against Dühring and other socialists): violence > has its roots in the economic power to produce knives (Robinson > against Viernes-Friday), not in the use of knives itself. The violence > we should be interested in is first of all the violence already > included in the developed existence of commodities, since they > presuppose money, money presupposes the State, and the State > presupposes a class society and therefore the violent domination of a > majority by a minority of people. > <<8. If finance is an unproductive sector, why is it so > predominant?>> 8. See my points 2 and 5: Finance is also a productive > sector, but it contains, of course, like all others do, one segment of > unproductive labor. > <<9. How do financial derivatives and associated products connect with > value > theory?>> 9. This relates to the more general problem, I think, of how > do the standard *net actualized value* of all assets (financial or > not) --one value which looks at the future-- with labor value. There > is a book (Martinez Marzoa, Felipe (1983): La filosofía de ‘El > Capital’, Taurus, Madrid) which is in the line Marx-Rubin-Brody > mentioned above and poses this question as the *unresolved diacronic* > aspect of the labor theory of value. > <<10. What determines exchange rate movements?>> 10. Again, I think we > have a good approach to the understanding of the *long-term trend* of > exchange rates (two Spanish dissertations, working on Shaikh's > lines, should be added to the literature on this topic: Mejorado, > Ascension (1996): Los determinantes micro y macroeconomicos del > deficit comercial espanol (1954-1994), Tesis Doctoral, Madrid: > Universidad Complutense. And Cabrera, Oscar (2002):La competencia > internacional: factores explicativos de la competitividad industrial > en los paises del mercado comun centroamericano, Tesis doctoral, > Universidad de Sevilla). Of course, exchange rates are a special case > of relative prices, i.e. relative values, so that their movement is > determined by the movement in the relative quantities of labor needed > in two different countries in order for each of them to reproduce the > same basket of commodities (representing the composition of the > worldy-traded basket of commodities). > <<(And more generally: > 11. Why is Marxism so male? (Look for example at OPE-L.)>> I really > don't know > <<12. What do we mean by socialism, and how do we think it might work? > > And I could go on.)>> Very important problem, but too difficult to me > (at least now) > <<These are serious analytical issues and require serious work. > Marxism > surely has to be more than just a political rhetoric. Or, there's not > a lot > of point in trying to change the world if we don't understand it. I > guess > this is to say that you can call it what you will - economics, Marxist > > economics, political economy, critique of political economy or > whatever > - the questions remain and still require our answers. Don't > they?Simon>> I completely agree. In fact, I apologize (and beg Simon's > and other's pardon) for having presented my views in such a rude > manner. I am used to do so for the sake of clearness. I have replied > to Simon's message precisely because of the importance I thing it has. > [And would like to pinpoint something. I had translated into Spanish > the same Alejandro Ramos's paper I criticized in a previous message: I > did so since I think this paper shows in a very clear and clever way > the TSS view. I have presented this paper for publication in my > Faculty's Journal (Politica y Sociedad) since I think it is an > excellent paper. The fact that I showed publicly my discrepancies with > it does not mean I don't praise it very much]. Likewise, I have put my > views in this message in a certain *provocative* way because I think > we are in the list to push and be pushed further in the debate. I > thank everybody. Diego
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT