In a message dated Wed, 13 Mar 2002 1:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, John Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doug, I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and > perhaps misses what might be important. > > Among other things you wrote: > > "Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what > political or intellectual progress exactly?" > > Yet this is a good question. Let me suggest some possible > answers: > > > 1. We, radicals, have little sense of how technical change > takes place in capitalist society. That is, the common > interpretation of Marx is that technical change is > labor displacing at all costs. Laibman goes as far as > to say that capitalists innovate in a "Rube Goldberg" > fashion. That is, labor replacing technical change > takes place at all costs. That is what ortho Marxism > has held for over a century. I doubt this is true > and do not impute that view to anyone, save David, in > particular. > > So what? Seems to me that anyone with this view could > easily grab hold of the idea that an alternative to > capitalism could exist side by side with a society > growing in such "Rube Goldberg" fashion. > > > 2. Within traditional approaches to Marx as well as in standard > eco thought, little if any attention is paid to "moral > depreciation". Indeed, the qualitative and quantitative > aspects of this type of depreciation disappear as one > simultaneously values inputs and outputs. Thus, in theory, > we can create situations in which a capitalist invests $100, > ends up with $20 and have a rising rate of profit. The usual > understanding of Marx's concept of valuation incorporate > this absurd possibility. > > Put simply, using Marx's concept of value, we should be able > to grasp how technical changes take place in capitalism and > what are the consequent changes in valuation. > > If we can't, we should move on to something else. I do not > feel that seeking answers to this problem is a sub for > activism nor do I find the concepts alienated. > > > > John In my opinion Marx repeatedly states that value is the amount of socially necessary labor in the production of commodites. Many understand this formula different. I accept it at face "value" because it makes sense to me. By technical changes in capital I understand this to mean technical changes in the forces of production. Marx gives a fairly good view of this process in Volume I of Capital, The General Law of capitalist accumulation, section 3 page 628. Technology changes on a continium from the dawn of the capitalist mode of production, up until this minute, reduce the amount of human labor needed in the production of the expanding world of commodities. That is to say a smaller magnitude of labor is needed to produce the same amount of commodites a previously existing magnitude of labor yielded. This affects how the total social capital is apportioned in the production process, with less of the total going to living labor in relationship to a larger magnitude being apportioned for machinery - dead labor. This impact the over all valuation of the living working class, which appears as increasingly larger sections of the population unable to sell their labor-power for enough wages to make ends meet. Melvin P
