[OPE-L:7296] [OPE-L:825] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: abstract labour
Ajit Sinha (sinha@cdedse.ernet.in)
05 Apr 99 12:23:56 IST (+0530)
Continuing my response to Rakesh:
> Rakesh wrote:
> > Dear Ajit,
> >
> > I thank you for the temperate reply and beg forgiveness for my
> > delay in
> > responding. I am just overcoming the flu which has been
> > compounded by
> > nightmares over the meaning and consequences of NATO's
> > perfunctory
> > dismissal of Primakov's attempt at mediation.
> ______________
> I hope your flu is history now. On Primakov's mediation: what
> else
> did you expect?
> ________
> >
> > Well, I am not hallucinating anymore, and I just read your
> essay
> > again.
> >
> > I really don't follow the conclusion, which you may wish to
> > elaborate for
> > the list:
> >
> > "In the case of Marx's *Capital* we have found that though the
> > book begins
> > with the problem of the allocation of labor, this aspect of his
> > theory
> > comes into conflict with the later part of the book. His
> attempt
> > to
> > contextualize the capitalist class relation in terms of
> exchange
> > relation
> > developed on the basis of the allocation of labor did not
> > succeed. In the
> > face of this finding, it is necessary to interpret Marx's
> concept
> > of value
> > and his choice of the unit of measure of value in the 'surplus'
> > context."(217)
> _________________
>
> The point I'm making is that political economy has been concerned
> with two or if you like three fundamental questions: (1)
> allocation
> of labor or resources, (2) Production and distribution of
> surplus,
> and (3) accumulation and growth. One way to interpret great works
> of political economy is to try and locate which of the three
> problematics dominate its theoretical structure. For example, if
> you look at Sraffa's reading of Ricardo then you will find that
> the
> problem of value arises in the context of how to measure the
> distribution of a given net output. Here the problem of value is
> squarely situated in the context of surplus problematic. The
> problem of allocation of labor is solved as a secondary outcome
> to
> the rule of distribution itself (i.e. competitive mechanism takes
> care of it). In the case of part one of *Capital* vol. 1,
> however,
> the problem of value is placed within the problematic of
> allocation
> of labor as such. There is no question of a production of surplus
> or its distribution here. The idea here is to suggest that in a
> commodity producing economy values of commodities represent the
> underlying structure of the social division of labor. My claim is
> that in the later part of *Capital* the problematic of surplus
> begin to dominate the theoretical structure. So the question
> becomes what was the relevance of the concern with the question
> of
> allocation, which is what the *law* of value is supposed to be.
> Its
> overt relevance can be found in the concept of labor-power being
> a
> commodity. The application of the *law of value* to this
> particular
> commodity was supposed to solve the problematic of surplus as a
> seconday outcome. But as I argue in my section 4, this strategy
> does not succeed. Marx seems to realize the tension in his theory
> at this point as well; as my citations from Marx reveals. That's
> why I'm giving the call to move away from 'labor as the *cause*
> of
> value' idea to 'labor as a *measure* of value' idea by placing
> the
> problem of exploitation at the center of the theory and driving
> the
> allocation of labor problem to the perephery.
> _______________
> >
> > Please elaborate on the kind of interpretation you are calling
> > for in the
> > last sentence.
> ________
> See above.
> ____
> >
> > In part what makes your argument against part one of *Capital*
> I
> > so
> > surprising is its seeming greater relevance as criticism to
> > Sraffian
> > theory. After all, could not one argue that it is Sraffian
> theory
> > which
> > shares with Walrasianism a metaphysical approach to political
> > economy.
> > While the latter takes income distribution to be secondary to
> the
> > problem
> > of relative price determination and the former reverses the
> > order, both
> > expunge from political economy the analysis of the specific
> > character of
> > the labor process which can meet valorization requirements.
> After
> > all,
> > capital, as self expanding value, plays no role in the Sraffian
> > framework
> > and thus could little affect the actual nature of the labor
> > process.
> ________________
> As it happens to most great thinkers, Sraffa I think is very
> poorly
> understood by his critics. I'll not say too much about Sraffa
> right
> now because I think I need to think more deeply about his project
> and work. I think most interesting part of Sraffa's work lies in
> his silences rather than his utterances. In anycase, Sraffa's
> project in PCMC was limited and more than once in private
> conversations he told people that he thought there was no need to
> rewrite *Capital* all over again. I think that you should not
> take
> the problematic distinction between 'scarcity' and 'surplus'
> approaches too lightly. It is a great divide in political
> economy,
> even though its early practisioners may not be too aware of it.
> ____________
> >
> > How is Sraffa concerned with the following critique of Smith
> by
> > Marx that
> > underpins your argument: "While the division of labour is
> society
> > at large,
> > whether mediated through the exchange of commodities or not,
> can
> > exist in
> > the most diverse formations of society, the division of labor
> in
> > the
> > workshop, as practiced by manufacture, *is an entirely specific
> > creation of
> > the capitalist mode of production*" (your emphases).
> >
> > There is much speculation about why bourgeois economists can
> > become
> > fascinated with Sraffian theory. Its focus on static
> reproduction
> > or
> > equilibrium conditions is often mentioned, though I think the
> > comlete
> > neglect of the capitalistically specific character of the labor
> > process
> > should play some role in the explanation, as Frank Roosevelt
> > argued almost
> > 25 years ago.
> _______________
> Again I'll leave Sraffa out of this. We cannot impose our own
> concern or problems on to his work. I personally don't think
> Sraffa
> is interested in equilibrium conditions at all. But on the
> question
> of the analysis of labor process, I myself have criticized the
> Sraffian interpretation of exploitation on this score. It is
> elaborated in my paper, 'The Transformation Problem: Is the
> Standard Commodity a Solution?' forthcoming in *Review of Radical
> Political Economics*.
> ____________
> >
> > I believe you have hidden your criticism of Sraffianism as a
> > critique of
> > Marx while burdening the latter with a problematic--the
> so-called
> > Walrasian
> > allocation problematic--that is not Marx's own...though it
> shares
> > much
> > greater commonality with Sraffa's "metaphysical" approach to
> > political
> > economy.
> ___________
> I do not understand what you mean by "metaphysical approach to
> political economy". The question is: is Marx concerned with the
> problem of allocation of labor in part one of *Capital* or not?
> ______
> >
> > Marx takes the grand problematic you attribute to him as
> childish
> > common
> > sense--that in bourgeois society, only the exchange values of
> > commodities
> > at determinate ratios can maintain the division of labor that
> is
> > required
> > for the fufillment of social needs. This is not Marx's
> > problematic in part
> > one; for Marx it is a childish insight.
> ___________
> If it is an "insight", then it is not childish. And Marx never
> thought that his revelation of the relation of labor with
> exchange
> ratios was childish. More later. Cheers, ajit sinha
___________________
> > Rakesh:
> > For example, if instead we take part one as the theoretical
> > development of
> > the nature and necessity of money--a theory at odds with
> > Walrasian or
> > Sraffian theories of money--then it makes no sense to take
> take
> > Althusser's advice to begin with "The Transformation of Money
> > into
> > Capital". We have to understand money first, as Fred M has been
> > arguing.
_________________
I'm not sure what Fred M. has been arguing. From what I have seen
on OPE-L lately, it seems Fred is moving more in my direction. In
any case, the real question here is to investigate if the argument
from the money side works. The relevance of the money-side argument
is this: C(1)<-->C(2) leads to C(1)--M--C(2). Till here there may
not be a serious problem. The question is: is there some kind of
logic that takes us from C(1)--M--C(2) to M--C--M', M'>M. My point
is that there is no logic that does it--a point I made in my first
published paper, 'The Concept of Value in Marx: A
Reinterpretation', *Research in Political Economy* vol 12, 1990.
Again we find that the logic gets into trouble at the same point.
So no matter whether you try to use the logic of commodity exchange
(i.e. the law of value to the commodity labor-power) or try to move
from commodity to money to capital. The logic gets into trouble at
the same point. Capital-labor relation and surplus production do
not come out as a logical outcome. I would like to here some
arguments rather than just quotations and assertions from others on
these issues.
_________________
> > Rakesh:
> > Moreover, the understanding of money reveals that Ricardian
> > theory through
> > its focus on only the quantitative dimension--which you take to
> > be Marx's
> > problematic, instead of the one he is criticizing--childishly
> > evades the
> > possibility of crisis built into commodity relations given the
> > necessity of
> > money.
________________
You see crisis you are talking about here is the misallocation
of labor
crisis. Market mismatch. This of couse falls within the allocation
problematic that I have alluded above. You should know that Ricardo
is far from childish. If you keep talking like this, no serious
scholar will ever take you seriously.
______________
> > Rakesh:
> > Marx could not be clearer:
> >
> > "This false theory of money is however based by Ricardo on
> this,
> > that
> > generally he has only in view the quantitative determination of
> > exchange
> > value, naumely it is the same as a definite quantity of labour
> > time,
> > forgetting as against this quantitative determinant, that
> > individual labor,
> > through its separation, must be represented as *general
> abstract
> > social
> > labour.*"
> > Theories of Surplus Value, Vol II, part II.
__________________
And the abstract labor does not have quantitative dimension? This
quotation from Marx proves nothing, since we are critiquing Marx's
own understanding and the presentation of the problem. I have never
denied that Marx's values are absolute concept where as Ricardo's
are relative. I don't understand what argument this quotation is
supposed to make.
___________________
> > Rakesh:
> > Now those who only focus on the quantitative aspect of exchange
> > fail to
> > note the necessary great losses and disequilibrium and crises
> > that are
> > inherent to this mode of the representation of social
> > labor--hardly a
> > Walrasian problematic! You argue that Marx suggests that
> through
> > price
> > signals adjustment takes place, making Marx compatible with
> with
> > Walras.
> > This is indeed the misinterpretation of Marx by Sweezy and a
> host
> > of
> > others.
________________
What is Marx's *law* of value, by the way? Marx considers it to be
a law akin to *law of gravity*. Market prices will have tendency to
*gravitate* toward prices of production. But of course Marx is
interested in accumulation and growth, which Walras is not. I have
not said that Marx is a Walrasian economist--far from it. What I'm
saying is that the problematic Marx is concerned with in part one
of *Capital* is compatible with Walras' problematic. In part one of
*Capital* the question of accumulation does not even arise.
__________________
Compare this to Blake's interpretation:
> >
> > "Value is not the law of equilibrium of economics, in Marx, as
> it
> > is in
> > other systems. It is the fact that labor can never be
> manifested,
> > except by
> > exchange, and under a form that negatives the exchange of time
> > for time,
> > that characterizes value as summing up of disequilibrium, of
> the
> > sum of
> > contradictions between labor time and the private production
> > which
> > ascertain that labor time, not directly but by way of other
> > commodities.
> > >From value to form of value, from that to money, from money to
> > profit, from
> > profit to purchase of labor, from that to contradictions of
> > production and
> > consumption, thence to crises and unemployment, this is an
> > unbroken chain
> > beginning with the theory of value as the SOCIALIST CRITIQUE OF
> > CAPITALIST
> > PRODUCTION." William J Blake, 1939
________________
I think your Blake character is full of hot air. Ask him to explain
you the unbroken chain from value to money to profit? And from
profit to purchase of labor? Does this guy ever make an argument
about anything?
_______
> >Rakesh:
> > You also don't show full appreciation of the theory of
> commodity
> > fetishism
___________
And you do? Tell us what it is in your own words please. More in a
separate post. Cheers, ajit sinha