I agree with Joseph on this one. See, for example, my article on the law of value & political ecology at: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/JD-1993-PoliticalEcology.pdf (“The Law of Value and Marxian Political Ecology,” in Jesse Vorst, Ross Dobson, and Ron Fletcher, eds., _Green on Red: Evolving Ecological Socialism_ (Society for Socialist Studies/Fernwood, 1993).).
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael Perelman wrote: >> I have just written a paper that I will be presenting in China about the >> relevance of Marx for an ecological future. >> I posted it here: >> > > It is an interesting paper, but I would like to comment only on one aspect of > it. This is its reference to Marx's theory of value. It attempts to show that > the value, properly calculated, takes account of environmental values. > > Actually, the labor theory of value is not a theory of what should exist in a > rational and non-exploitive economy, but of what exists under capitalism. It > is not a theory of what is of real value to humanity, but a theory that > explains how capitalism devastates various of these real values. Value > *really does* negate environmental concerns. This is *not* a defect of Marx's > theory: it correctly shows what happens under capitalism. > > Many things of the greatest environmental importance have *no* *value" (with > respect to the labor theory of value), correctly reflecting that they don't > have value as far as capitalism goes. > > For example, Marx states in "Capital" that > > "A thing can be a use-value, without having value. This is the case whenever > its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural > meadows, &c." > (Capital, vol. I, Chapter I. At the end of Section 1, on p. 47 in the 1906 > Kerr edition, which was reproduced by Modern Library) > > According to Marx and Engels, what is needed to deal with the environment is > *not* a "better" theory of value, but conscious control of production; the > overcoming of the contradiction between town and country; planning with > respect to not just immediate uses, but with the respect to the future and > with respect to the overall interests of society; etc. And all this requires > a change in social system. > > Even some passionate advocates of the use of the labor-hour in calculation > concede that this does *not*, in itself, defend the environment. Professors > Cottrell and Cockshott have written a great deal about the use of the labor- > hour in economic calculation. While I disagree with their viewpoint, I think > their work is a serious attempt to work out the consequences of planning via > the abstract labor-hour. Yet they write: > > "We are not claiming that labor-time calculation would necessarily do better > [than capitalism] in cases where the market fails to conserve resources. .... > we should emphasize that we do not regard labour-time calculation as > providing a mechanical decision procedure for all planning questions. A > socialist society might open up democratic debate on specific technologies or > projects with substantial environmental impacts, and might allow > environmental considerations to override 'efficiency' measured in terms of > labour-minimization. We have no problem with the idea that environmental > considerations and labour-time accounting are not necessarily reducible to a > scalar common denominator, and that the balancing of these considerations may > require political judgment on which opinions can differ." > > (Allin Cottrell and W. Paul Cockshott, "Calculation, Complexity and Planning: > The Socialist Calculation Debate Once again", in Review of Political Economy, > vol. 5, no. 1, 1993. Section II.3.a.) > > Value calculation, no matter how much one tries to improve on value -- such > as with a Pigovian tax -- cannot provide for such planning. It is in > contradiction to it. This is the one of the reasons why the carbon tax won't > do any better than carbon trading in dealing with global warming; both of > them are based on market fundamenatlist ideas and on trying to tamper with > the value of commodities. Yet the law of value is the law of the enslavement > of the worker and the devastation of the environment. > > It is common today to regard that economic calculation requires reducing > everything to a single numerical scale: either the price, the value, the > improved value, the labor-content, or whatever. That is not so. > > It is quite possible to calculate in a way that associates with each product > not one number, its value, but a series of numbers indicating what materials > are necessary for its production, how much labor of different kinds is > necessary, how much waste is produced, etc. The methods that have so far been > used for doing some of this are only approximate, but better than value > calculation. However, to the avoid misunderstanding, let me add that the use > of these methods does *not* constitute socialist planning -- only a more > realistic planning than what could be provided with value calculations. I > talk of these methods *not* to suggest that a mere improvement in technical > planning will suffice to deal with global warming, but to show that reducing > things to their value is *not* a rational method of economic calculation, but > simply the capitalist method. > > -- Joseph Green > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
