From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Jan 31 2006 - 04:06:34 EST
Hi Ian, You write: "Thanks for reminding me that Steedman goes on to show that labour-values, far from determining the average rate of profit via S/(C+V), are crucially dependent on the rate of profit under choice of technique. I was restricting my attention to no choice of technique." I reply: But the 'no necessary relation' argument is, on this account, simply due to assuming away the necessary relation by assuming away choice of technique. What you are getting at requires unpacking the meaning of 'necessary relation' You quote me: > Imo, the economic basis for refuting neo-R critique lies in the > necessity for there to be limits on prices, to ensure enough needs of > workers are met, and enough profit needs of capitalists are met, > across the economy and through time. These limits are given by SNLT. And you comment: "That may well be so. But the neo-Ricardian critique assumes a static situation (or, more precisely, self-replacing equilibrium). You're not refuting it unless you accept the assumptions of the critique, or show that an assumption is necessarily wrong or misguided. Steedman challenges defenders of the LTV to do just that." I reply: You say 'it may well be so'. But the point is it must be so if capitalism reproduces. Therefore you cannot argue that (i) capitalism reproduces and (ii) there is no necessary relation between SNLT and price. We know (i) is true hence (ii) must be false. That's enough to immanently refute the neo-R critique. To show exactly where neo-R goes wrong is a secondary task (see below). You quote me: > The theory of exploitation shows in essence how the system actually > enforces these limits. But it is folly to think that at any point in > time the aggregate equalities actually hold at market prices because > the limits take effect only through rupture and crisis. And you comment: "I agree that it would be folly when talking about market prices, because in disequilibrium situations labour-value is not necessarily conserved in exchange (e.g., some labour may not be equalised with other labour because it is unwanted). But the TP is situtated in ch.9 when Marx is talking about theoretical prices of production. Although the text is not crystal clear, I read Marx's stress on aggregate conservation claims to mean that he's trying to square price-value conservation (Vol I.) with uniform profit-rate." I reply: I read Marx in the same way. The point about market prices has a number of implications: firstly, it warns us against approaches to the TP which get the result that the aggregate equalities *do* hold at market prices. Secondly, it shows that the whole problem is down to levels of abstraction. Thirdly, if the limits take effect only through rupture and crisis then they will not show up in the static case - to the theorist unaware of the structure of abstraction and causation in Marx's work then it is therefore going to look like Marx imposes rather than 'proves' the aggregate equalities. Many thanks, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 02 2006 - 00:00:02 EST