Chaion
-------
2. Value is not socially necessary labor time. The magnitude of value
is
determined by socially necessary labor time. The two statements are not
identical. Testable causal theory? OK. let me take an example. Let us
call the degree of temperature X, and the height of mercury in the
thermometer Y. Can we make independent estimates of X and Y? IMO,
we cannot. To estimate X, I rely on Y although I am well aware that Y
is externally distorted not exactly expressing X. Values cannot be
measured independently of prices, average prices, market values.
Paul
----
Writing as I do from Glasgow, the home of both political economy
and thermodynamics, I find your temperature analogy an interesting
one. But I think that, on reflection, it supports my case.
At about the same time as one Adam Smith was professor of Moral
Philosophy here, and was setting out a coherent formulation of the
labour theory of value, Dr Black of the department of Natural
Philosophy along with one of his technicians, one James Watt, were
laying the foundations for a proper understanding of heat and
temperature.
In your analogy you argue that values can not be measured independently
of market prices just as temperature can not be measured independently
of the height of mercury on a thermomenter. We will leave out for
the moment that one can also measure the temperature of a body by
analysing its black body radiation spectrum, and concentrate on the
analogy that you make between temperature and price. I think that
this is basically a fair comparison. But if we rest our analysis at
this level, whether in political economy or in natural philosophy, we
have a pre-Smithian political economy and a pre-Watt understanding
of heat.
What Smith did, ( drawing on others ) was to show that behind
relative prices there was an underlying objective cause - the labour
required to produce things 'The real price of every thing, what
every thing really costs to the man who wants to aquire it, is the
toil or trouble of acquiring it.' This was a great scientific
advance since it related the immediately visible phenomenon -
price measured in money to something behind the scenes - labour
time. Both of the entities involved in the causal theory are
independently observable and measurable. This contrasts with the
notions of 'utility' in vulgar economics which are not objectively
observable, but have to be deduced from the observed prices.
The parallel advance by Black and Watt, was the introduction of
the notion of heat as something independent of temperature. A
necessary component of this theory was the notions of specific
and latent heats. Thus, by experiment, they were able to establish
that the change in temperature of a body was proportional to
the heat input divided by the specific heat of the substance
concerned. This again related the observed measurement - temperature
to something behind the scenes - heat. Like labour, heat was
independently measurable, for instance in terms of the amount of
coal burned. Later with Carnot the equation between heat and
work is made. Not only does this make the analogy with value and
labour even closer in terms of the then existing conceptual
framework, but it opens up the way for more accurate objective
measures of heat energy. By use of a dissipative calorimeter,
Carnot could show that the work of a given weight falling a
known distance would produce a definite rise in temperature of
water. This then gives a fixed and external measure of heat
energy.
The correct table of analogy between terms in the two domains
of Moral and Natural Philosophy is thus:
Moral Philosophy Natural Philosophy
---------------- ------------------
1.Price in gold guineas Temperature on an alcohol
of whisky thermometer of whisky
2.Specific labour Specific heat of whisky
content of gold
3.Value of whisky Heat content of the whisky
4.Labour required to Thermal energy content of
make and distill whisky hot whisky measured in foot
measured in hours pounds or horse-power seconds
Thus the two schools of philosophy reduce the phenomena they
are concerned with to indirect manifestations of work done,
Smith taking human labour as his standard, Watt taking the
labour of horses.
However, in compiling this table I have shown 4 rows. Smith
and Watt would probably only have recognised 3 ( Smith 1,2,4)
Watt (1,2,3). If, however we take Smith enhanced by Marx
and Watt by Carnot, we get the 4 rows. Now the interesting
thing about rows 3 and 4, is that in each case they are
different ways of considering the same thing. One may measure
heat in calories, but it is the same thing as energy in terms
of joules, Watt, ergs, foot-pounds, horsepower hours etc. Similarly
value is the same thing as labour time, so much so, that nobody
has ever proposed any other unit of measurement for it.
But value is not price, nor is heat temperature. To obtain a
price from a value we need the intervention of gold with its
own specific labour/value content per ounce. To obtain a temperature
from the heat one needs the specific heat of the subtstance
being heated. The scale on your mercury thermometer,
celsius or farehnheit is then analogous to whether we measure
price in guineas or sovereigns.
Chaion
------
In your
statement, labor is directly identified with value itself. This is
silly,
however. The substance of value is labor, which I think is the
starting-point of all our discussions. If then, the substance of value
should not be confused with the value itself.
Paul
----
In the light of my above table perhaps you will understand better
the equivalence that I am making. All value is labour, but that does
not mean that we can identify value with labour, since not all labour
is value. Similarly all heat is energy, but not all energy is heat.
But this only implies that value is a subset of labour, not that
it is anything different from labour.
Chaion
------
Labor is a flow quantum.
Yet value is a lump-sum quantum, a congealed labor. Unproductive labor
is also a labor but does not create any value: labor is one thing, value
is
another. The substance of the state is a sovereign power. But the state
that has no sovereign power can still act as a state.
Paul
----
I think that this is a matter of convention in the use of terms.
I am using labour in the sense of labour hours, which, to use Watts
terminology is Work done ( horse-power hours ).
The flow quantity is thus not labour but labour-power, just as
the flow quantity for Watt is horse-power. In both cases we are
dealing with a capacity to perform work.
However, one can if one wants use the word labour to refer to
the capacity to work, ( the flow quantity ), as you do. In which
case for consistency you should drop the concept of labour power,
and simply use the term labour where the word labour power is
normally used.
Thus we would have the final table:
Moral Philosophy Natural Philosophy
---------------- ------------------
1.Price in gold guineas Temperature on an alcohol
of whisky thermometer of whisky
2.Specific labour Specific heat of whisky
content of gold
3.Value of whisky Heat content of the whisky
4.Labour required to Thermal energy content of
make and distill whisky hot whisky measured in foot
measured in hours pounds or horse-power seconds
5.Ability to work or Ability to work or horse-power
labouring power of the of the steam engine at the
distillery workers distillery ( raising barrels ? )
I think that it is pretty clear that the concept of labour-power
could not have been formulated until the genius of Watt had made
the concept of horse-power, or power in general part of the
universal inheritance of the industrial age.