tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post3103678025739786246..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: The Absurdity of the Transformation ProblemLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-11725992307784681592015-12-10T21:59:19.157-08:002015-12-10T21:59:19.157-08:00Since you seem to be veering back towards discussi...Since you seem to be veering back towards discussions of Marxism, LK, I was wondering whether you had ever perused the exchange between Marxist economists/commentators here: <br /><br />https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/andrew-kliman-and-the-failure-of-capitalist-production/<br /><br />The way I see it is that Kliman's TSSI is the latest and most formidable defense of Marxian orthodoxy, and if you're going to refute Marxian orthodoxy you need ought take Kliman's TSSI head on.<br /><br />To my knowledge, you have at least two posts about the TSSI, and both criticize it for its circularity--i.e., labor creates value *by definition* in the TSSI's theoretical formulations. (which is really a symptom of the larger problem--that Marx's theory of value is deduced from what it is supposed to explain)<br /><br />I think there's some validity to that critique, but I also think the critique(s) forwarded by Bill Jefferies' and other Marxists in that exchange on the blog is incisive and interesting in its own equally compelling way. If you read the exchange, you can see that Kliman is at war with 'physicalist' and 'simultaneist' readings of Marx, because he wants to preserve the validity 'Law of the Tendential Fall in the Rate of Profit'. However, the 'physicalists' on that blog (who apparently don't like that name) end up poking holes in both his interpetation of Marx and his statistical/accounting methodology in 'The Failure of Capitalist Production', which uses the TSSI to analyze the Lesser Depression/Great Recession.<br /><br />However, Kliman tries to defend his interpretation of Marx by pointing out that if you follow the Physicalist interpretation, "Marx’s law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit is logically invalid." <br /><br />So it seems to me the whole exchange provides the material for a more comprehensive refutation of *both* the TSSI *and* The Law of the Tendential Fall in the Rate of Profit. (which, again, the TSSI was more or less constructed to salvage) It seems no one refutes Marx better than rival Marxist scholars. I'm currently in the process of trying to organize it in my head--maybe you could take a crack at it. At the very least it's an interesting exchange on the most current and theoretically robust (but, IMO, no less wrong) defense of Marxian orthodoxy. Maybe there's at least fodder for a future post in there. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-88616403834856369372015-12-08T12:45:08.026-08:002015-12-08T12:45:08.026-08:00My comment doesn't imply it's the whole le...My comment doesn't imply it's the whole left. I said where the left holds sway. And that seems to be true. These are all left dominated places and groups we're talking about. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9609454067414879252015-12-08T09:21:54.123-08:002015-12-08T09:21:54.123-08:00It's a part of the left, not the whole left. A...It's a part of the left, not the whole left. And we've been through this, Ken B. This type of PCness also infects the mainstream right too -- at least to some extent.<br /><br />There are also vocal liberals/leftists who reject this, e.g., Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dave Rubin, Bill Maher, the late Christopher Hitchens, etc. There are more if you bother to look. Also, I imagine there are many more ordinary leftist people who strongly agree.<br /><br />I do agree, however, that what some idiot leftists have done to, e.g., Ayaan Hirsi Ali is disgraceful. Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33047047366249206582015-12-08T08:55:12.779-08:002015-12-08T08:55:12.779-08:00What alternate universe? The answer, and neither y...What alternate universe? The answer, and neither you nor LK will like it, is a world where the Left holds sway. Tell me these tools aren't proud leftists. Here's another example of a left-wing dominated group in that "alternate universe" http://nypost.com/2015/12/06/womens-studies-is-betraying-women-under-sharia-law/<br /><br />I recommend looking for some older links on Wafa Sultan, a wonderful woman who receved a similar treatment. She had a great great quote about freedom of religion, "You can worship stones, as long as you don't throw them at me."<br />(She said this on TV debate in a muslim country too.)Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-39891556350377814182015-12-07T06:48:09.482-08:002015-12-07T06:48:09.482-08:00No. I've been very clear about this, and I...No. I've been very clear about this, and I'm not sure how to be clearer.<br /><br />Tell you what: How about you just tell me, in your own words, exactly what claims you think I'm making about Marx's theory *in sum*, and I'll tell you where you're right and/or wrong. Bullet points are fine; let's keep it terse.<br /><br />Explanations that originate from me never seem to get absorbed or retained, so perhaps if we start with expressions native to your own thoughts, we can actually have a productive exchange where we're not just talking past one another. That's all I've ever sought, really.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6068160759716825322015-12-06T21:25:37.770-08:002015-12-06T21:25:37.770-08:00(4) "Yes, it is explicitly unrealistic to sup...(4) <i>"Yes, it is explicitly unrealistic to suppose that prices of production are equal to values in 19th century (or later) capitalism, as Marx does in volume 1."</i><br /><br />So, wait, you now ADMIT this?? <br /><br />That in vol. 1 Marx <i>did</i> think that individual commodity prices in the 19th century are governed by SNLT with the later anchors for the price system? And so he MUST have realised that thee was a transformation problem between labour values and individual commodity prices of production?<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76765301560177050042015-12-06T21:15:06.135-08:002015-12-06T21:15:06.135-08:00(1) How do you mean?
(2) This assertion is proble...(1) How do you mean?<br /><br />(2) This assertion is problematic in the face of centuries of evidence supporting Marx's position. Remember back when I tried to share some empirical work with you and you just ignored it for months? Yeah, you've definitely killed your own credibility on this point.<br /><br />(3) First off, Lexis actually more or less figured out the OCC thing between volumes II and III and Engels spoke highly of him as a result. But you're right, a lot of other people were misunderstanding the theory early on, and many of them were taken to task for it even back then. I think it's clear from the context of the discussion that I'm talking about <i>Marx and Engels</i> with regard to the TF, contrary to your baseless claims that they "feebly" "scrambled for" ways to solve some intractable problem, etc.<br /><br />(4) Yes, it is explicitly unrealistic to suppose that prices of production are equal to values in 19th century (or later) capitalism, as Marx does in volume 1. Because they empirically and plainly do not. I honestly don't know how I could be any clearer on this point. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. But I honestly have no idea what kind of argument you'll actually listen to, since you've very inconsiderately ignored many of the questions I've been posing -- this among them.<br /><br />And yes, I'm sure you actually do find all this "laughable." I do enjoy making people laugh, and apparently you've been holding your sides for nearly a whole year, now. This is very gratifying to me in one sense, but in another I really do wish you'd get serious about this discussion.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-84474590493988265772015-12-06T21:11:06.920-08:002015-12-06T21:11:06.920-08:00Yep, an outrage. Though Ken B also brought this up...Yep, an outrage. Though Ken B also brought this up:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/12/chomsky-defends-enlightenment-from.html?showComment=1449178931843#c2776892919549471030Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-42160682296398551492015-12-06T20:57:34.192-08:002015-12-06T20:57:34.192-08:00(1) your comment just consists in denying that Mar...(1) your comment just consists in denying that Marx meant to apply the view that labour values determine individual commodity prices to 19th century capitalism in vol. 1. False. <br /><br />(2) Gravity exists with a huge amount of evidence; Marx's law of value does not. It is utterly incoherent.<br /><br />(3) <i>"So, you're 100% correct to question why anyone was worried about the alleged transformation problem. Indeed, no one was."</i><br /><br />lol... Did Conrad Schmidt, Landé, Lexis, Skworzoff, Stiebeling, Julius Wolf, Fireman, Lafargue, Soldi, Coletti, Graziadei and Achille Loria slip into the memory hole?<br /><br />(4) What is more, the view you were endlessly expressing on this blog was this:<br /><br /><i>“>In vol. 1, goods have at <br />>least a tendency to exchange at <br />>pure labour values<br /><br />We've been over this a hundred times. It's a simplification for pedagogical purposes <b>that is explicitly unrealistic</b>.”</i><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/08/marxs-capital-volume-1-chapter-8.html?showComment=1438715789086#c514791626841157667<br /><br />Now -- in the face of the evidence against this view -- you have quietly abandoned it and admitted that Marx and Engels did think it applied to the pre-modern world of commodity exchange. You continue to maintain the view, however, that Marx never mean this to apply to 19th century capitalism in vol. 1 in the face of all the evidence. Laughable.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-91276312459203461542015-12-06T14:19:18.381-08:002015-12-06T14:19:18.381-08:00LK I have some rage-inducing news for you. At Gold...LK I have some rage-inducing news for you. At Goldsmith University secularalist and feminist leftist Maryam Namazie came by to speak against Islamic fundamentalism only for the Goldsmiths Islamic Society to try to shut her down in their "safe space". But the craziest part? The student LGBT and Feminist societies came out in support of the Islamic Society and against Namazie! <br /><br />What alternate universe am I in?!!!<br /><br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17973580598290240182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-66906680824983450442015-12-06T12:04:37.050-08:002015-12-06T12:04:37.050-08:00Your title is dead on. As a show of gratitude, I&...Your title is dead on. As a show of gratitude, I'll try to be brief. Or at least briefer than usual.<br /><br /><i>This law of value ceases in the advanced capitalist world where prices of production become the anchors for the price system.</i><br /><br />Close: Rather than ceasing outright, it becomes obscured by other factors. Nevertheless, the same aspect continues to operate, constraining the system in much the same way as before.<br /><br /><i>The very fact that modern capitalism has highly variable organic compositions of capital and strong competition means that Marx should have seen from the beginning that there was no transformation problem.</i><br /><br />Properly speaking, he did -- hence why he never mentions (or names) it. It is the provenance of later theorists.<br /><br /><i>There was no need for Engels to announce a competition in his preface to volume 2 of Capital asking readers to try and solve the transformation problem, because there was no such problem.</i><br /><br />Engels didn't invite readers to "solve the transformation problem"; rather, his challenge was to "show in which way an equal average rate of profit can and must come about, not only without a violation of the law of value, but on the very basis of it."<br /><br />As with Marx, Engels never frames anything as "the transformation problem."<br /><br /><i>Of course, the reality is that Marx, when he wrote volume 1 of Capital, did actually think his theory of value there was meant to apply to 19th century capitalism.</i><br /><br />Correct!<br /><br /><i>The new solution was then to claim that Marx’s law of value in volume 1 had never been meant to apply to 19th century capitalism in the first place and that it was only ever valid for the pre-modern modern of commodity exchange before the 15th century.</i><br /><br />No, that's incorrect.<br /><br />Attempting to interpret Marx through the eyes of Hume or Comte is destined to fail. The only way the theory makes sense is through a realist ontology, which among other things necessitates "the epistemological commitment to regard theories as constituting knowledge of both observables and unobservables." (quoted from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy article <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/" rel="nofollow">on scientific realism</a>.)<br /><br />I can recommend some very good books on the subject, if you wish.<br /><br />But the point is, saying the law of value vanishes because it is no longer apparent makes about as much sense as claiming a man actually loses his face during a game of peek-a-boo, or that gravity does not affect airplanes.<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, Bortkiewicz, Dimitriev and Tugan-Baranovsky showed that Marx’s first argument was untenable.</i><br /><br />Not quite; their demonstrations mistake Marx for a dual-system theorist.<br /><br />Here's something that should interest you, since you have commented before on Engels's editing: According to a survey of the original documents via the MEGA, one of the passages he omitted makes the single-system nature of the theory absolutely clear. Alejandro Ramos discusses this in a 1998 paper ("Value and Price of Production: New Evidence on Marx’s Transformation Procedure"), but you can also see it referenced in <a href="https://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/introduction3.doc" rel="nofollow">this document</a>, on page 18. <br /><br />The "K" variable (cost-price) is indeed the same for both values and prices of production, which means the single-system theorists were right. And, as we've seen, the transformation problem does not exist for single-system interpretations of the theory.<br /><br />So, you're 100% correct to question why anyone was worried about the alleged transformation problem. Indeed, no one was.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89406599389883275882015-12-06T08:38:00.361-08:002015-12-06T08:38:00.361-08:00This recent paper by economist Robert L. Vienneau ...This recent paper by economist Robert L. Vienneau is also relevant:<br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2519466Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-455657632135945072015-12-06T08:32:40.535-08:002015-12-06T08:32:40.535-08:00Dear LK, I appreciate your writing but on this iss...Dear LK, I appreciate your writing but on this issue I think you are too quick to dismiss and do not appear really interested to find out whether there some interesting scientific content beneath the labour theory of value inherited from classical political economy.<br /><br />I would argue that it is indeed possible to formulate scientifically testable theory based on some of the insights from vol. 1 while abandoning parts of vol. 3. If we view prices are random variables of each commodity-type, then mathematicians Farjoun and Machover showed in 1983 how these random prices are statistically determined by the labour required to produce the commodities. In 1984 their predictions were also verified independently by economist Anwar Shaikh at the New School.<br /><br />A more recent multicountry study has also tested some of their predictions. Cf. http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Zachariah_LabourValue.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com