From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Fri Jun 25 2004 - 23:57:50 EDT
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, ajit sinha wrote: > Fred, Let's cut through the chase. According to you, > Marx's theory of value boils down to this: Marx > assumes that commodities have value. Values are > measured by socially necessary abstract labor. Though > socially necessary abstract labor cannot be measured > or observed, but still Marx assumes that it is a real > thing and commodities have them. And then Marx assumes > some arbitrary measure for the value of any commodity. > And that is his theory of value. This, in my opinion, > is a nonsense theory of value--and definitely not > Marx's theory of value. You, of course, find it very > profound. So we leave it there. I'm visiting Paris for > a couple of weeks, ans so will not be checking ope-l > too often. Cheers, ajit sinha Hi Ajit, Sorry for my delayed response. I certainly do not begrudge you a trip to Paris, but this is a disappointing ending (for now) to what I thought was a pretty good discussion. I tried to explain that Marx's theory is not "nonsense", in spite of being based on unobservable variables, because it provides explanations of important phenomena of capitalism (total surplus-value is proportional to total surplus labor, inherent conflicts over the length of the working day and over the intensity of labor, inherent technological change, trends in the rate of surplus-value, the composition of capital, and the rate of profit, etc.). Indeed, I would argue that Marx's theory of value has greater explanation power than any other economic theory. And, instead of engaging this argument, you just repeated your assertion that a theory based on such assumptions is "nonsense". That does not move the discussion forward. Have a good time in Paris! Comradely, Fred > > --- Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, ajit sinha wrote: > > > > > --- Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, ajit sinha wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What I mean by "L is taken as given" is > > this: > > > > it is > > > > > > assumed that the > > > > > > capitalist labor process results in L hours > > of > > > > > > socially necessary labor > > > > > > time, in units of simple unskilled labor. > > We > > > > don't > > > > > > know what this > > > > > > quantity is, but it is assumed that it > > exists, > > > > and > > > > > > that it determines the > > > > > > quantity of money new-value produced during > > this > > > > > > period (along with the > > > > > > MELT), according to the equation: > > > > > > > > > > > > N = (MELT) L > > > > > ______________________ > > > > > I don't know what N stands for, but whatever > > it > > > > is, I > > > > > presume it is a determined variable. > > > > > > > > > > > > N stands for money new-value produced in a given > > > > period, as explained in > > > > previous posts. In Marx's numerical example for > > his > > > > theory of > > > > surplus-value (in Chapter 7 of Vol. 1), a 6 hour > > day > > > > produces money > > > > new-value of 3 shillings, according to the > > equation: > > > > > > > > N = (MELT) L > > > > > > > > 3s = (0.5s/h) (6h) > > > _____________________ > > > Now, both 6 hour day and 3 shillings are > > observable > > > categories. > > > > > > No, as I have explained before, socially necessary > > labor-time is not > > observable, not only because of unequal skills and > > unequal intensitities > > of labor and unequal conditions of production, but > > also because socially > > necessary labor-time also assumes supply = demand. > > > > > > > > > First, this statement says that every 6 > > > hours day produces 3 shillings worth of 'money > > > new-value'. Thus it is claiming that 6 hours of a > > > carpenter's labor and 6 hours of a mason's labor > > both > > > produce the same amount of 'money new-value'. Thus > > the > > > abstraction that the 6 hours of carpenter's or > > mason's > > > or others labors produce the same 'money > > new-value' is > > > made by the theorist and it does not happen > > through > > > market or the through the medium of money etc. So, > > I > > > guess, my point about the abstract labor is > > settled by > > > your own example. > > > > > > What exactly is your point about abstract labor? > > It is not clear to me. > > > > > > > Second, though both the hours of > > > labor and shillings are observable, the > > relationship > > > between them, i.e., 6hours of labor produces 3 > > > shillings of 'money new-value' is the assumption > > of > > > the author. So the value of MELT is nothing but > > simply > > > an assumption too. So your N is nothing but a > > product > > > of two assumed (i.e., arbitrary)numbers and > > therefore, > > > it is nothing but simply an arbitrary number. > > > Remember, a theory is more than assumptions. > > > > > > The quantities of SNLT and the MELT are unknown, but > > this does not mean > > that they are "arbitrary". It is assumed that the > > real quantities of SNLT > > and the MELT exist, even though we don't know what > > they are, and that > > these two variables jointly determined the money > > new-value produced > > according to: > > > > N = (MELT) (SNLT) > > > > According to Marx's theory, this equation explains > > how the real actual N > > in the economy is determined, even though we don't > > know the actual > > quantities of MELT and SNLT. Also, as discussed in > > previous posts, this > > theory is used to derive the following important > > conclusions: > > total surplus-value it proportional to total surplus > > labor, inherent > > conflicts over the length of the working day and > > over the intensity of > > labor, inherent technological change, trends in the > > rate of surplus-value, > > the composition of capital, and the rate of profit, > > etc. > > > > So I would say that Marx's theory is much more than > > assumptions. It has > > impressive explanatory power in terms of the > > conclusions derived from its > > basic assumptions. > > > > Ajit, how does your theory explain how the total > > new-value is > > determined? Does your theory of new-value also > > explain these other > > important phenomena that Marx's theory explains? > > > > > > > > And a 12 hour day produces money new-value equal > > to > > > > 6 shillings, according > > > > to: > > > > > > > > 6s = (0.5s/h) (12h) > > > > > > > > Yes, N is a "determined variable", determined by > > the > > > > product of L and > > > > MELT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is, according > > > > > to your equation, determined by the product of > > > > (MELT) > > > > > and L. By your own admission, you don't know > > how > > > > much > > > > > the L is. And up till now you have not told us > > how > > > > is > > > > > the MELT determined. So at present, the above > > > > equation > > > > > translates as "nonsense" in plain English. > > > > > > > > > > > > In Marx's theory in Capital, the MELT is > > determined > > > > by the value of gold, > > > > i.e. is equal to the inverse of the labor-time > > > > required to produce a unit > > > > of gold (i.e. MELT = 1 / Lg = 1 / (2 hrs. per > > > > shilling) = 0.5 shilling per > > > > hour). > > > __________________________ > > > > > > But how do you get "the inverse of the labor-time > > > required to produce a unit of gold"? In the > > production > > > of gold constant capital is a factor, which is not > > > gold. So you need to measure the constant capital > > > factor in arriving at your measure of "labor time > > > required to produce a unit of gold". My question > > to > > > you all for a long time have been: how do you do > > that? > > > Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > > > The labor-time required to produce a unit of gold > > includes the labor-time > > required to produce the means of production used in > > gold > === message truncated === > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 29 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT