From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Apr 10 2007 - 07:10:33 EDT
--- Allin Cottrell <cottrell@WFU.EDU> wrote: > That, I believe, is a mistake: it is warping the > definition of > value to match market price (hence my "dissolving" > comment). ________________________ Its not only a mistake, it simply cannot be done. Anybody who comes down from verbal statements and tries to work out the meaning of the proposition through mathematical example will quickly learn that. I have discussed three major ways by which the money argument is brought by Marx in the value theory and their failures in my paper,‘Some Critical Reflections on Marx’s Theory of Value’, in Value and the World Economy Today, (eds.) R. Westra and A. Zuege, Palgrave, 2003. But not many people seem to have seen it. In any case, here is a short excerpt from the paper that shows where Jerry might be coming from and why it does not work (I have taken one interpretation here but all other interpretation would fail in a similar way): Another strategy of relating labor to commodity exchange ratios is provided in Marx’s famous letter of July 11, 1868, to Ludwig Kugelmann. In this letter Marx writes, … All that palaver about the necessity of proving the concept of value comes from complete ignorance both of the subject dealt with and of scientific method. Every child knows that a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the volume of products corresponding to the different needs require different and quantitatively determined amounts of the total labour of society. That this necessity of the distribution of social labour in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode of its appearance, is self-evident. Natural laws cannot be abolished at all. What can change in historically different circumstances is only the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of labour asserts itself, in a social system where the interconnection of social labour manifests itself through the private exchange of individual products of labour, is precisely the exchange value of these products. (Marx and Engels 1982, 196). This letter has been invoked most frequently in the defense of Marx’s ‘labor theory of value’. Unfortunately the meaning of the passage quoted above is not “self-evident”. Leaving aside what every child might or might not know, let us analyze the statement, “And the form in which this proportional distribution of labour asserts itself, in a social system where the interconnection of social labour manifests itself through the private exchange of individual products of labour, is precisely the exchange value of these products.” Does this mean that in a commodity-producing economy the exchange ratios between commodities are determined by taking the ratios of total labor employed in various sectors? This interpretation will have no problem only in a situation where there are no means of production in the system. In that case the ratios of total labor spent in various sectors of the economy will be the same as the embodied labor ratios of commodities. This case, however, is not interesting; not only because it is universally agreed that the so-called simple labor theory of value is valid in such cases, but more importantly, a capitalist mode of production is inconceivable without means of production. Once we introduce means of production in the above given interpretation, we find that the above proposition comes to naught. For example, let us assume there are only two sectors in the economy producing two commodities x and y, and the system of production is given by: 10x + 10y + 10l --> 30x (1) 10x + 5y + 10l --> 30y (2), where l represents simple homogeneous direct labor measured in terms of hours of labor. By the usual embodied labor measure it can be easily verified that in this system of production the value of x is equal to 7/8 hours of labor and the value of y is equal to 3/4 hours of labor. Thus 1x should exchange for 7/6y according to the simple labor theory of value. Now, let us interpret Marx’s above statement in the light of our given production system. Here 10 hours of labor in total is distributed to the production of 10 units of net output of x. Thus the value of x should be equal to 1 hour of labor. Similarly, 10 hours of total labor is distributed to producing 15 units of net output of y. Thus the value of y should be equal to 2/3 hours of labor. And the exchange value of the two commodities turns out to be 1x for 3/2y. When we impute these values of x and y so determined to our means of production in the system, it turns out to be: 10 lx + 20/3 ly + 10 l --> 30 lx (1’) 10 lx + 5 ly + 10 l --> 30 ly (2’), where lx and ly represent values of x and y respectively. Since all the l’s are simple homogeneous labor time they can all be added up and the arrows should be replaced by the = sign. However, as it is quite clear from (1’) and (2’), in this case the left hand side of the equation will not be equal to the right hand side of the equation. Hence defining the labor values and the exchange values on the basis of distribution of total labor not only gives a measure different from Marx’s own practice but, more importantly, leads to contradiction when means of production are measured consistently on their basis. Thus any attempt to erect a defense of labor-values on this basis must lead to a dead end, and can only create verbal confusion. Cheers, ajit sinha ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:16 EDT