From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Sep 21 2004 - 07:15:30 EDT
--- Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > Hi Ajit > > Thanks for the pointer to Garegnani, and your note > that prices can be > proportional to labour values in other models. > > > Ian, I think you need to distinguish between the > 'law > > of value' and the 'theory of value'. > <..snip..> > > 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 don't quite follow you here. Are you saying that a > complete "theory > of value" must predict prices? Therefore, the "law > of value" is not a > "theory of value" because it does not predict > prices? I am happy to > accept your distinctions for the sake of argument, > with the caveat > that it appears that the "law of value" is a > reasonable predictor for prices. __________________ In my understanding, the 'law of value' tells you that a center of gravitation exists at any given time but not where that center is. The theory of value, on the other hand, tells you what that center is. That's the difference between the two for me. ________________________ > > But it seems to me there is a problem with the > criteria that a "theory > of value" must predict prices. That's because prices > can undergo all > kinds of arbitrary transformations due to property > rights specific to > a particular economic organisation. For example, > capitalist profits > via ownership of the means of production fall into > this category, and > the price transformation due to this appropriation > results, > theoretically at least, in prices of production. But > if we follow this > criterion then a "theory of value" is specific to > particular economic > setups. For example, consider a hypothetical society > of co-operatives, > in which means of production are not privately > owned, and firm revenue > is allocated to firm members according to some > democratic principle. > That is, all members of society receive the same > type of income. In > this society prices will not be transformed due to > equal returns on > capital invested, although they may be transformed > in other ways. > Therefore, according to your criteria, this society > will need a > different "theory of value" to predict prices. But > in both cases there > are goods being exchanged in markets with prices > attached to them. > Both societies have concepts of economic value. It > would seem natural > to require a general theory of economic value that > can apply to both > cases. _________________ What is so natural about it? For Marx a theory of value must be specific to a given mode of production. Your position is more akin to the neoclassical position. They claim that their theory of value is universally valid. __________________________ > > I think that a complete "theory of value" should be > trans-historical, > or more precisely, trans-social. That is, there are > objective > determinations of economic value that are > necessarily reflected in any > viable social system. We're still toiling in the > realm of necessity > after all. This is Marx's point about the > trans-social necessity for > every society to allocate social labour-time. The > key point is that > work must be performed and it takes time. ___________________ A social division of labor requires exchange of goods, but not necessarily a value calculation. Imagine exchange on the basis of gifts--here goods would exchange without value calculations. In a well defined caste division of labor also goods would exchange without any value calculations. I think it is simply wrong to think that exchange of goods imply "value", if value has to keep its meaning. _____________________ But there > isn't a > trans-social necessity for capitalists to earn a > return on investment. > The latter is a distributional quirk of capitalism. > And further, I > guess that a general economic theory of value should > also theorise > different forms of value, and therefore not > necessarily refer to > quantitative prices at all. ____________________ I simply don't understand what could be a non-quantitative theory of value, given that value is a quantitative term. Cheers, ajit sinha > > -Ian. > _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 22 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT