From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Sep 15 2004 - 16:09:09 EDT
At 10:34 PM -0700 9/13/04, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >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. > > I should add that not only is Marx's value theory as qualitative as quantitative, its quantitative nature lies primarily not in its explanation of exchange ratios but in the causes and consequences of a permanent tendency for the decline of unit values, i.e. the inverse movement between value and use value (see Korsch, Karl Marx, chapters on value). Ricardo also made the distinction between value and riches, but this chapter had no real organic link to the rest of his Principles. Marx's analysis on the other hand develops out of a deepening of this distinction. Ricardo writes: "...and the society will, nothwithstanding the increased quantity of commodities, notwithstanding its augmented riches, and its augmented means of enjoyments, have a less amount of value. by constantly improving the facility of production, we constantly disminish the value of some of the commodities before produced, though by the same means we not only add to the national riches, but also to the power of future production." p. 274 This is the dynamic Ricardo that was of crucial importance to Marx, not the theorist of exchange ratios. I have also argued that what TSS misses is the effect of a greater quantity of uses value not only on the power of future production but also the future appropriation of unpaid labour. That is, even TSS which is in my opinion very close to Marx tends to undo the dialectic of value and use value, value and riches. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 16 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT