Re: [OPE] debates on whether value existed in pre-capitalist society

Hi Paul,

Yes, I noticed that. Curious. It comes from the University of Wisconsin
Platteville so it could no doubt be traced; endnote 1 is a place to start.
I've never read Ibn Khaldun. The rich scholarship of the surrounding
centuries requires attention -- much was done in the philosophy of natural
science also.

howard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
To: "'Outline on Political Economy mailing list'" <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE] debates on whether value existed in pre-capitalist
society

> Who wrote that paper, it is unsigned.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu
> [mailto:ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of howard engelskirchen
> Sent: 01 September 2010 00:13
> To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
> Subject: Re: [OPE] debates on whether value existed in pre-capitalist
> society
>
>
> http://www.uwplatt.edu/~soofi/khaldun2.pdf
>
> Economics of Ibn Khaldun: Revisited
>
>
> The Value Theories
>
> Value theory formed the foundation of classical and Marxian political
> economy. A discussion of theories of value is present in al-Mugaddimah but
> it does not occupy such a prominent role in Ibn Khaldun's writings as it
> does in the classical and Marxian systems. His treatment of the
> determinants
> of value of the commodities in many respects resembles but is not as
> well-developed as the theories of value by Smith, Ricardo, and Marx.
> Additionally, his remarks associating utility derived from real estate and
> its price is a prelude to the utility theory of value.
>
> 1. Labor Theory of Value
> Although Moslem writers had alluded to labor as an important source of
> value
> as early as the 7th century4, Ibn Khaldun in his al-Mugaddimah had
> developed
> the rudiments of labor theory of value. The parallelism between Adam
> Smith's
> labor theory of value and Ibn Khaldun's labor theory of value is striking.
> Smith started his labor theory of value by stating: Labour was the first
> price, the original purchase--money that was paid for all things. It was
> not
> by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was
> originally purchased. (Smith 1937, 30)
>
>
> Ibn Khaldun developed his value theory by indicating:
> There is nothing here [originally] except the labor, and [the labor] is
> not
> desired by itself as acquired [...,but the value realized from it] (Vol.
> II,
> 313)5
>
> He further expanded on this theme by writing:
>
> Carpentry and weaving, for instance, are associated with wood and yarn [
> the
> respective craft needed for their production]. However, in the two crafts
> [first mentioned] the labor [that goes into them] is more important, and
> its
> value is greater. (Vol. II, 313)
>
> After a few paragraphs, Ibn Khaldun wrote:
>
> It has thus become clear that gains and profits, in their entirety or for
> the most part, are value realized from human labor. (Vol. II, 314)
>
> Ibn Khaldun had earlier defined `profit' as:
>
> [The part of income] that is obtained by a person through his own effort
> and
> strength is called `profit.' (Vol. II, 312)
>
> Here, however, Ibn Khaldun divides the total product, the gains, into used
> and un-used parts. He called the part that is used up `sustenance,' a
> concept that Karl Marx called `necessary labor.' In Ibn Khaldun's words
> `sustenance...is [the part of the profit] that is utilized.' (Vol. II,
> 314)
>
> For modern readers Ibn Khaldun's usage of the term profit is problematic.
> However, it should be clear from the passage that what Ibn Khaldun calls
> profit or gain is in fact total produce. Ibn Khaldun, in discussing the
> constituent parts of the gain, explains that a man's ... profits will
> constitute his livelihood, if they correspond to his necessities and
> needs.
> They will be capital accumulation, if they are greater than [his needs].
> (Vol. II, 311-312)
>
> Therefore, Ibn Khaldun's division of the total product of labor into
> `sustenance' and `capital accumulation' is similar to the Marxian notion
> of
> `necessary' and `surplus' labor.
>
> In considering labor as a commodity, Ibn Khaldun was a precursor of Karl
> Marx in another respect. Ibn Khaldun wrote:
>
> For labor is a commodity, as we shall show later, in as much as incomes
> and
> profits represent the value of the labor of their recipients...'.(Issawi,
> 85)
>
> Khaldun's thought on another aspect of value theory resembles David
> Ricardo's ideas. David Ricardo, in development of the labor theory of
> value,
> was consciously in search of an `invariable' unit of measurement and
> arbitrarily selected gold as a commodity which is produced by a method of
> production that is an average of two extremes: `... the one where little
> fixed capital is used, the other where little labor is employed, as to
> form
> a just mean between them?'(Meek 1956, 110)
>
> Ibn Khaldun also arbitrarily chose gold and silver as `invariable'
> measures
> of value by stating that `God created the two mineral `stones,' gold and
> silver, as the [measure of] value...' (Vol. II, 313) Furthermore,
> [Gold and silver are what] the inhabitants of the world, by preference,
> consider treasure and property[to consist of]. Even if, under certain
> circumstances, other things are acquired, it is only for the purpose of
> ultimately obtaining [gold and silver]. All other things are subject to
> market fluctuations, from which [gold and silver] are exempt (6). (Vol.
> II,
> 313)
> By this analogy I neither intend to imply that Ibn Khaldun's selection of
> precious metals as `invariable' measures of value was based on indepth
> analyses that characterized David Ricardo's selection procedure, nor do I
> mean to suggest that Khaldun was consciously in search of an invariable
> unit
> of measurement. My comments are aimed at showing that both men arbitrarily
> selected precious metals for the purpose.
>
>>From the foregoing discussion it is clear that Ibn Khaldun had a
>>rudimentary
> labor theory of value, a prelude to the consistent, well formulated, and
> sophisticated versions of the theory by David Ricardo and Karl Marx.
>
> FOOTNOTE 4
> 4. Shirazi (1985, 58 ) attributes the following statement to Imam Baghar,
> a
> 7th century shi'ite saint: `Money is nothing but amedium of exchange, and
> it
> is the labor power of the Moslems that has put Roman's gold and silver at
> our disposition.'
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
> To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPE] debates on whether value existed in pre-capitalist
> society
>
>
>> Who was the arab thinker of the middle ages who invented the labour
>> theory
>> of value?
>> ________________________________________
>> From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu [ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Dave Zachariah [davez@kth.se]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:18 PM
>> To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [OPE] debates on whether value existed in pre-capitalist
>> society
>>
>> On 2010-08-31 17:32, Paul Cockshott wrote:
>>> I seem to recall this having been debated extensively in the past with
>>> Jurriaan and I taking the position that it did and various others taking
>>> a different view.
>>> Can anyone remember when these debates were in the archive, and who
>>> argued that value was something specifically capitalist?
>>
>> I recall we had some discussions along those lines last year, where
>> Jerry was advocating a 'value-form' position. For instance the thread
>> 'value-form theory redux':
>>
>> http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0903/author.html
>>
>> //Dave Z
>> _______________________________________________
>> ope mailing list
>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>
>> The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
>> _______________________________________________
>> ope mailing list
>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
> The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Sep 2 20:10:31 2010