From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Tue Sep 14 2004 - 01:34:27 EDT
At 10:00 PM -0700 9/13/04, ajit sinha wrote: >Ian, I think you need to distinguish between the 'law >of value' and the 'theory of value'. The >neo-Ricardians' or Garegnani's position on the 'center >of gravitation' is essentially what Marx means by law >of value. Read Garegnani on 'gravitation' and how >essential it is for a theory of value. Gravitational tendency towards inter industry equalization of profit rates cannot be conflated with gravitation towards equilibrium price. > Here you will >get all the neo-Ricardian arguments for your >attractors. The theory of value on the other hand >deals with predictions of particular exchange ratios. >They are entirely two different things and cannot be >conflated into one. No Marx's theory of value is not only a quantitative theory of exchange ratios. It is also a qualitative theory of the form of exchange, i.e. why value is necessarily represented in money. Remember Marx criticizes the classical economists for neglect of the form of value. For Marx money arises out of the condition of barter but negates the condition of barter. Marx's logico historical account of money is dialectical in the true sense. As Masoto Aoki has shown, the money mediated form of exchange creates the possibility of a general crisis that does not exist in a system of barter. For Marx, the classical economists ignored the qualitative aspect of value theory, hence the nature of a money mediated form of exchange and thus the possibility of a general crisis of overproduction. This aspect of Marxian theory was absorbed and diluted in Keynes' system (as Aoki shows) but is not captured in either neo classical or Sraffian price theory. In his analysis of Marx's criticism of Ricardo Ian Steedman does not even mention the former's critique of the latter's neglect of the qualitative value problem. A strategic blindness. You too ignore this aspect of Marx's theory of value by saying that it is basically only a prediction of particular exchange ratios. Which means that you have pretend that Marx never said anything about the qualitative aspects of value theory. > As a matter of fact the law of >value is well accepted by the neoclassical price >theory both partial and general, at least till the >intertemporal GE. Therefore, on this score there is no >significant difference between Classicals, Marx, and >neo-Classical economics. There is quite a bit difference on how the equalized rate of profit is determined. Rakesh > >In my previous post I had tried to make two points: >(1) attempts to derive value from commodity exchange >relations are conceptually flawed, and (2) the crucial >variable for a theoretical mobility is absent in the >SCP model for your attractor to come into play. >Cheers, ajit sinha > >--- Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > >> Hi Ajit >> >> I don't think anyone disagrees with the proposition >> that under >> capitalism the law of value operates with greater >> force, due to the >> existence of generalised commodity production and >> the labour market. >> That is what I take you to be saying in your >> footnote. >> >> But I'm glad you consider the possibility that the >> mobility of labour >> in capitalism can generate a dynamic tendency to >> homogenize the labour >> reduction coefficients, despite the immediate >> appearance of wage >> inequality, and discrimination on irrational >> grounds, such as gender >> or race. >> >> I think that the tendecy for wages to homogenize >> should have an equal >> theoretical status to the tendency for profit rates >> to homogenize. >> >> Workers strive for economic equality with each other >> and capitalists >> strive for economic equality with each other. But >> they do so according >> to different rules and different methods. But in >> reality neither >> tendency is realised. Most neo-Ricardian models >> conflate these >> tendencies with their actual realisations, and then >> attack Marx >> because both tendencies cannot be simultaneously > > realised. But as I've >> tried to point out before, this is a non-sequitur, a >> basic >> philosophical error caused by a failure to >> distinguish between >> mechanisms and events. >> >> The concept of "simple commodity production" has a >> number of meanings. >> The more controversial concept has to do with its >> existence in the >> past, prior to capitalism. Clearly, before >> capitalism, labour mobility >> was less, so if the law of value did operate in some >> locations in some >> periods, it will have operated with less force. >> >> The less controversial concept, but the less >> discussed, is the idea of >> simple commodity production that Andrew Trigg >> mentioned: basically >> capitalism without a capitalist class. This is a >> counterfactual >> theoretical object that is an aspect of capitalism. >> In the >> neo-Ricardian approach, if we assume zero profits >> and homogenous >> reduction coefficients then the law of value holds >> without >> contradiction. But because the neo-Ricardian >> approach is static it >> just views this result as merely an economic >> configuration that may or >> not pertain. The idea that this configuration is the >> attractor of a >> dynamic mechanism that operates over time is >> completely absent from >> the neo-Ricardian literature I have consulted. As >> usual, mechanisms >> are reduced to events so when capitalists are >> brought back into the >> picture, and profits are strictly positive, the >> deviation of prices >> from values is just another fact, the appearance of >> which contradicts >> the neo-Ricardian concept of the law of value. But >> the law of value is >> not the realisation of prices proportional to labour >> values, it is the >> mechanism with that attractor. The neo-Ricardian >> approach fails to >> analyse the dynamic relationship between the two >> attractors: the law >> of value and the law of equal profits. Instead, it >> reduces the >> mechanisms to their attractors, discovers a >> contradiction, and then >> chooses to reject the law of value rather than the >> law of equal >> profits. Is it only me, or isn't this both obvious >> and basically a bit >> stupid? >> >> My apologies for repeating myself on this list, but >> I'm hoping someone >> such as Ajit can point out what is wrong with my >> argument. Otherwise, >> I am at a loss to understand how the neo-Ricardian >> rejection of the >> Marxist theory of value has had any influence at >> all. It seems to me >> to be based on a howler. >> >> -Ian. >> >> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:14:09 -0700, ajit sinha >> <sinha_a99@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 16 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT