From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 23:35:18 EDT
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, ajit sinha wrote:
> --- Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to begin by responding to Ajit's
> > important question: "how
> > does one arrive at the measure of 10 hours of
> > labor?" In other words, how
> > does one measure abstract labor?
> >
> > My answer will be in terms of how I understand
> > Marx's theory deals with
> > this question.
> >
> >
> > 1. Marx assumed that the basic unit of measure of
> > abstract labor, as the
> > "substance of value", is one hour of simple,
> > unskilled labor, of average
> > intensity, and using average conditions of
> > production.
> _______________
> Fred, I'm glad to see you moving firmly in my
> direction.
I don't know about that. See below.
> So you agree that
> "the basic unit of measure of abstract labor, as the
> "substance of value", is one hour of simple, unskilled
> labor, of average intensity, and using average
> conditions of production." This is what I have been
> belaboring for ages. Now, this measure does not need
> money.
No, this is not what I mean. The measure of abstract labor DOES NEED
MONEY, because the measure of abstract labor in terms of labor-time is
INVISIBLE, i.e. NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE as such. Therefore, in order to
obtain an indirect, observable measure of abstract labor, money is
necessary. Money is the "necessary form of appearance" of abstract labor.
An observable form of appearance of abstract labor is necessary because
labor in a commodity economy is not regulated directly and consciously
according to a social plan, but is instead regulated indirectly and
unconsciously through market prices. In any type of society, the
quantities of labor-time necessary to produce different goods must of
necessity play a role in the allocation of social labor. However, since
there is no direct regulation of social labor in a commodity economy, the
only way the quantities of labor-time necessary to produce goods can play
a role in the regulation of social labor is by being indirectly
represented in terms of observable quantities of money, as the
(average) price of commodities.
I think that this is one of the strengths of Marx's theory - that it
explains the necessity of money on the basis of its fundamental theory of
value. NO OTHER ECONOMIC THEORY, including Sraffian theory, has been able
to explain the necessity of money on the basis of its theory of value.
> When it comes to reduction of skilled to unskilled
> labor, the problem is a problem of higher level of
> complication. As far as defining value is concerned,
> one can assume a world with only unskilled labor.
> Secondly, Both Ricardo and Marx (Smith did not have a
> LTV) believed that the reduction could be made by
> taking the wage differentials as multipliers. Whether
> it is correct or not is a different question and what
> other ways one can use to effect the reduction or to
> what extent this does the LTV in etc. are separate
> theoretical questions.
I disagree. I don't think either Ricardo or Marx used wage differentials
as the skills multipliers. But I agree that we can set this question
aside for now.
> We should be able to define
> value in a world of only unskilled labor. And in this
> case, as you agree now with me, money has no role to
> play. Cheers, ajit sinha
No, again, this is not what I mean. I said that abstract labor could be
measured in units of labor-time; I did not say that money plays no
role. Indeed, as just explained, money plays an essential role. Money is
the necessary form of appearance of unobservable quantities of abstract
labor. Money makes invisible abstract labor indirectly visible.
You are reducing Marx's concept of value to one dimension - abstract labor
(as many do, especially Sraffian-inspired interpreters of Marx). But
Marx's concept of value is richer than that - it consists of two
dimensions - abstract labor AND MONEY. Abstract labor is the
"substance" of value and money is the "necessary form of appearance" of
value.
Marx criticized Ricardo for the same mistake. Marx argued that Ricardo
was solely concerned with the MAGNITUDE of value (the quantity of the
substance of value, abstract labor), and did not understand money as the
necessary form of appearance of value. One such critique is found in
TSV.III. 133, 13 pages prior to the passage quoted by Rakesh which
initiated this OPEL discussion of Marx's theory of money.
"Ricardo's mistake is that he is concerned only with the
MAGNITUDE OF VALUE... But the labour embodied in them
[commodities] must be represented as SOCIAL labour...
This circumstance - the necessity of PRESENTING the
labour contained in commodities as UNIFORM SOCIAL
LABOUR, i.e. as money - is overlooked by Ricardo.
(TSV.III. 131; emphasis in the original)
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 05 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT