tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8334940234650653081..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Achille Loria and Alexander Gray on Marx’s Labour Theory of Value Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79394990481920404412015-11-01T16:45:41.674-08:002015-11-01T16:45:41.674-08:00Have you considered Morishima/Shaikh solutions to ...Have you considered Morishima/Shaikh solutions to the transformation problem?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30625310015156219022015-04-03T09:57:52.488-07:002015-04-03T09:57:52.488-07:00Right before your eyes Marx, Marx refers to 20 yar...<i>Right before your eyes Marx, Marx refers to 20 yards of linen being = to a coat, because SNLT is the equal. If that is not an exchange value then what the bloody hell is it?</i><br /><br />An equivalency of the proportion of the total social labor capacity needed to produce each. I don't see what's so hard about this.<br /><br /><i>Even if average price does not "directly coincide with the values of commodities" it must come very close indeed to directly corresponding to SNLT if all firms have the same organic composition of capital.</i><br /><br />I've already said that prices of production are equal to value (not merely "close indeed") if all firms have the same organic composition. Your point?<br /><br /><i>Even if it was, it is proof of how ... badly written Capital, vol 1. is</i><br /><br />Maybe, maybe not. Certainly you're not alone in believing the book to be confusingly organized. However, it's worth pointing out that in order for that assumption to make any sense at all, he'd need to define quite a few terms and relationships in advance — which is exactly what he does in the preceding chapters.<br /><br />(Of course, there are a number of other passages that have been pointed out to you beyond <i>just</i> said footnote.)Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26102792946514913992015-04-03T09:35:50.682-07:002015-04-03T09:35:50.682-07:00(1) "Notice how the whole passage discusses &...(1) <i>"Notice how the whole passage discusses "value" and not <b>"exchange value.""</b></i><br /><br />Marx does not need to use the phrase "exchange value" explicitly to refer to that concept. <br /><br />Right before your eyes Marx, Marx refers to 20 yards of linen being = to a coat, because SNLT is the equal. If that is not an exchange value then what the bloody hell is it?<br /><br />Your claim above is about as ludicrous as you can get.<br /><br />(2) on the other issue, however, I am willing to concede one point. I did not notice this footnote:<br /><br /><i>"The continual oscillation in prices, their rising and falling, compensate each other, and reduce themselves to an average price, which is their hidden regulator. It forms the guiding star of the merchant or the manufacturer in every undertaking that requires time. He knows that when a long period of time is taken, commodities are sold neither over nor under, but at their average price. If therefore he thought about the matter at all, he would formulate the problem of the formation of capital as follows: <b>How can we account for the origin of capital on the supposition that prices are regulated by the average price, i.e., ultimately by the value of the commodities? I say ‘ultimately,’ because average prices do not directly coincide with the values of commodities, as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others believe.”</b></i> (Marx 1906: 184–185, n. 1). <br /><br />But even this is hardly the sweeping victory you claim it to be. Even if average price does not "directly coincide with the values of commodities" it must come very close indeed to directly corresponding to SNLT if all firms have the same organic composition of capital.<br /><br />What is more, this is hardly a statement by Marx saying, "oh and by the way all commodities are assumed to exchange at their labour value in this book."<br /><br />Even if it was, it is proof of how confused and badly written Capital, vol 1. is -- for he should have made his assumptions absolutely clear in main text of Chapter 1, not in an obscure footnote at the end of Chapter 5.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-16816172308893800452015-04-03T09:18:36.420-07:002015-04-03T09:18:36.420-07:00That quote just doesn't prove what you want it...<i>That quote just doesn't prove what you want it too. </i><br /><br />Only if one has some deep-seated need to read it differently. But please, tell me what else it might mean to say that a phenomenon "must be <i>explained</i> ... in such a way that the <i>starting-point</i> is the exchange of equivalents" — where "the exchange of equivalents" specifically means equal value for equal value. If you're going to contort this into anything but a limiting statement for the purposes of exposition, at least do us the basic courtesy of sharing whatever mutated version you had to create. I'm morbidly curious.<br /><br />Steve's subsequent additions also join the heap. Just how many falsifying examples do you need?<br /><br /><i>Right in Chapter 1 of Capital (vol. 1), Marx explains exchange value in these terms: </i><br /><br />See, now, <i>THIS</i> passage doesn't say the thing you want it to. (Now watch, as I treat you with more respect than you've shown me, by at least including with my claim the explanation of why that is.)<br /><br /><i>“We have <b>assumed</b> that the coat is worth twice as much as the linen. But this is merely a quantitative difference, and does not concern us ·at the moment. We shall therefore simply bear in mind that <b>if the value</b> of a coat is twice that of 10 yards of linen, 20 yards of linen will have the <b>same value</b> as a coat. <b>As values</b>, the coat and the linen have the same substance, they are the objective expressions of-homogeneous labour.” (Marx 1982: 124)."</i><br /><br />Notice how the whole passage discusses "value" and not "exchange value." The only place he uses a word ("worth") that MIGHT be interpreted in those terms, he explicitly states that an "assumption" is operating.<br /><br /><i>If this was not meant to be an explanation of *any real world exchange values* at all, then Marx was simply one of the most incompetent economic writers ever, as Gray (1946: 320) notes</i><br /><br />I love how you even have to namedrop to say something as devoid of content as "Marx was incompetent," even if your reason for saying so is that the above paragraph doesn't explain something it doesn't even set out to explain. It reflects poorly upon the reading, not the writing.<br /><br />I raised a point earlier that you never responded to, so I'll try it again. The point in science is not to contradict a person, but the theory they've tendered. When you have multiple interpretations of a person's text in a science, you therefore have multiple, separate theories. For all that you struggle to lash out at Marx, in fact all your claims are claims about one of two interpretations of him — an interpretation literally no one, not even Marx himself (as you yourself have admitted!), has ever defended. So, consider yourself victorious, the dead horse was dead long before you began beating it. Now it's time for you to come to grips with the one that we've all been riding around your fields in the meantime.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-24793439903257767942015-04-03T09:08:53.550-07:002015-04-03T09:08:53.550-07:00Ah, okAh, okwww.MiguelNavascues.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880006105532291958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-83520008024898681522015-04-03T07:13:00.897-07:002015-04-03T07:13:00.897-07:00Because he is making an assumption as he even says...Because he is making an assumption as he even says. Economists do this all the time by saying, "assume we have X, Y, and Z." A better question is: why do all Marxists reject that prices and values are equal? And why does Marx himself say "prices do not directly coincide with the [labour] values of commodities." <br /><br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58408883005621887352015-04-03T06:52:12.482-07:002015-04-03T06:52:12.482-07:00He tratado de hacer eso aquí:
http://socialdemocr...He tratado de hacer eso aquí:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/04/matias-vernengo-on-marxs-labour-theory.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10977052609359211572015-04-03T06:45:08.299-07:002015-04-03T06:45:08.299-07:00Then why does Marx, say, attempt to explain cotton...Then why does Marx, say, attempt to explain cotton prices in terms of socially necessary labour time in vol. 1 of Capital as quoted above? (Marx 1982: 317–318).<br /><br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-25117107555069140102015-04-03T06:22:20.371-07:002015-04-03T06:22:20.371-07:00"The continued oscillations in prices, their ..."The continued oscillations in prices, their rise and fall, compensate each other . . . and carry out their own reductions to an average price, which is their internal regulator . . . the problem of the formation of capital . . . [is]: How can we account for the origin of capital on the supposition that prices are regulated by the average price, i.e., ultimately by the [labour] value of the commodities. I say 'ultimately,' because average prices do not directly coincide with the [labour] values of commodities." [Capital, Vol. 1, p. 269fn]<br /><br />I don't know any Marxists who claims that value equals prices and they are all pretty explicit to say otherwise. The reason Marx does this is fairly simple: it would take way too much time to calculate value while we can easily collect information on prices. Furthermore, value acts as a anchor for prices so prices are likely to oscillate around value although very rarely will they be the equal. It is important to remember that Marx was working on the Labor Theory of Value and not the Labor Theory of Prices. <br /><br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-43934282746486545902015-04-03T03:34:49.880-07:002015-04-03T03:34:49.880-07:00That quote just doesn't prove what you want it...That quote just doesn't prove what you want it too. <br /><br />Right in Chapter 1 of <i>Capital</i> (vol. 1), Marx explains exchange value in these terms: <br /><br /><i>“We have assumed that the coat is worth twice as much as the linen. But this is merely a quantitative difference, and does not concern us ·at the moment. We shall therefore simply bear in mind that if the value of a coat is twice that of 10 yards of linen, 20 yards of linen will have the same value as a coat. As values, the coat and the linen have the same substance, they are the objective expressions of-homogeneous labour.”</i> (Marx 1982: 124). <br />-----------------------<br /> If this was not meant to be an explanation of *any real world exchange values* at all, then Marx was simply one of the most incompetent economic writers ever, as Gray (1946: 320) notes.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-86323385844047991932015-04-03T03:07:32.406-07:002015-04-03T03:07:32.406-07:00This is absolutely beyond the point of ridiculousn...This is absolutely beyond the point of ridiculousness. Just so readers are not misled by your report, I'll just share it directly.<br /><br /><i>"It is therefore impossible for capital to be produced by circulation, and it is equally impossible for it to originate apart from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation and yet not in circulation.<br /><br />"We have, therefore, got a double result.<br /><br />"<b>The conversion of money into capital has to be explained on the basis of the laws that regulate the exchange of commodities, in such a way that the starting-point is the exchange of equivalents</b>. [24] Our friend, Moneybags, who as yet is only an embryo capitalist, must buy his commodities at their value, must sell them at their value, and yet at the end of the process must withdraw more value from circulation than he threw into it at starting. His development into a full-grown capitalist must take place, both within the sphere of circulation and without it. <b>These are the conditions of the problem.</b>"</i><br /><br />The trouble appears to be that you typed the phrase "all commodities are assumed to exchange at their value" into your browser and hit ctrl+f. Sorry you weren't able to guess the exact phrasing he used in one try, but to be fair I HAD specifically requested that you <i>read</i> the passage.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52223046918794659342015-04-03T02:58:22.974-07:002015-04-03T02:58:22.974-07:00Natural price for Marx in that context would mean ...<i>Natural price for Marx in that context would mean a cost of production price including an average rate of profit. But how does that directly correspond to SNLT?</i><br /><br />Yeah in this case "natural prices" would refer to "prices of production." Prices of production are equal to value where they incorporate the average organic composition of capital. So, for a given price, a higher-than-average capital intensity implies profit > surplus value, while lower capital intensity implies the opposite. When surplus value and profit on a commodity are equal, then K+s = K+p, and therefore price equals value.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-51166450403350140982015-04-03T02:41:52.184-07:002015-04-03T02:41:52.184-07:00Me gustaría que LK enlazará este magnifico post co...Me gustaría que LK enlazará este magnifico post con la teoría de la plusvalía, que lógicamente se deriva de la LVT, y que imagino que es donde Marx entra en contradicción. www.MiguelNavascues.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880006105532291958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-82346010130649055702015-04-03T01:06:01.488-07:002015-04-03T01:06:01.488-07:00I've read the last few pages of Chapter 5 and ...I've read the last few pages of Chapter 5 and I see no statement where Marx says in vol. 1 "all commodities are assumed to exchange at their value". No surprises there.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52100446528920542222015-04-03T00:28:15.869-07:002015-04-03T00:28:15.869-07:00Miguel:
Impossible? I dunno, I've managed to...Miguel:<br /><br />Impossible? I dunno, I've managed to read quite a lot more than that in a single sitting, even. But to each his own.<br /><br />As I said, if you're in a hurry, the chapter's conclusion in the last few paragraphs covers it. The full chapter is just the detailed argumentation. You don't have to read it all; all that matters is that I was asked "does the text contain [X]" and I indicated that yes, it does, in that chapter.<br /><br />Sorry for trying to be thorough, I guess. Hope you can forgive me in between crippling paroxysms of laughter.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62856592339693005292015-04-02T21:50:06.793-07:002015-04-02T21:50:06.793-07:00Exactamente. Si digo:
LK: ¿de dónde Marx dice est...Exactamente. Si digo:<br /><br />LK: ¿de dónde Marx dice esto?<br />Marxista: es en el volumen 3 de la Capital: acabo de leer 1.000 páginas de texto!! Usted encontrará que es!Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-70238139059038625662015-04-02T21:47:50.553-07:002015-04-02T21:47:50.553-07:00Natural price for Marx in that context would mean ...Natural price for Marx in that context would mean a cost of production price including an average rate of profit. But how does that directly correspond to SNLT?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12717694145755333012015-04-02T20:12:22.650-07:002015-04-02T20:12:22.650-07:00He makes a case value isn't created in circula...He makes a case value isn't created in circulation DESPITE "[exchange] value = natural price".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-61102299917996977012015-04-02T15:44:21.734-07:002015-04-02T15:44:21.734-07:00Impossible conciliation. "The whole chapter&q...Impossible conciliation. "The whole chapter". Broadly. Hahahawww.MiguelNavascues.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880006105532291958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-3399877267965475212015-04-02T15:41:17.840-07:002015-04-02T15:41:17.840-07:00Hahaha, Hahaha, www.MiguelNavascues.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880006105532291958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-15109921329247108632015-04-02T12:57:31.639-07:002015-04-02T12:57:31.639-07:00Socialmente tiempo de trabajo necesario nunca fue ...Socialmente tiempo de trabajo necesario nunca fue debidamente definido por Marx. Se supone que significa el trabajo promedio de un trabajador promedio.<br /><br /><br />Marx no se refiere en realidad a la esclavitud aquí, pero al precio de un cultivo de algodón que se ha reducido en un desastre natural. Marx cree que puede explicar el aumento del precio del algodón en términos de tiempo de trabajo, lo cual es ridículo.<br /><br />Y, sí, la oferta y la demanda explicarían precios cultivos en esos casos. Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-2776736366577711832015-04-02T12:49:59.810-07:002015-04-02T12:49:59.810-07:00Why earth means "socially necessary"? I ...Why earth means "socially necessary"? I suppose Marx is referring to slavery as a distortion of the real value of cotton in the market. Is not the introduction of an Ethical question in the economic question? <br />But that is perfectly explained, and in a simpler way, by de neoclassical VT, or the subjective theory of value.www.MiguelNavascues.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880006105532291958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50036611382944126762015-04-02T12:31:18.346-07:002015-04-02T12:31:18.346-07:00The whole chapter makes the case that value isn...The whole chapter makes the case that value isn't created in circulation. If you're in a hurry and just want a brief statement, I guess you can jump to the last few paragraphs, but the general point I'm making is contained in the chapter broadly.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6664559262440548052015-04-02T12:06:18.224-07:002015-04-02T12:06:18.224-07:00where in chapter 5?where in chapter 5?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-45605647947541715482015-04-02T12:02:18.913-07:002015-04-02T12:02:18.913-07:00It's in chapter 5, dude.
Is that all?It's in chapter 5, dude.<br /><br />Is that all?Hedlundnoreply@blogger.com