Michael Perelman wrote:
> I don't disagree with Joseph & Jim. I thought I was agreeing with
> Joseph when I write:
>
> "Ironically, Marx's value theory is often wrongly dismissed for having
> neglected natural resources. For example, in a widely circulated
> article, Paul Samuelson charged Marx with ignoring "the patent fact that
> natural resources, too, are productive" (Samuelson 1957, p. 894).
> However, with his concept of reproduction costs, Marx offered a
> framework well in advance of contemporary economics. The wanton
> depletion and degradation of resources should be taken into account in
> evaluating economic activities, even though the price system pays no
> attention to such matters."
>
Oops. I'm sorry, I oversimplified the argument a bit with respect to
what is said in your article. At certain points, you talk about value theory
as reflecting the capitalist reality, and criticize that reality. Your
article states:
"Of course, unlike academic economics, Marx was analyzing the way the
economy actually works, not the way it should ideally function. Value
reflects a major operating principle of a flawed system. that exists today.
Of course, unlike academic economics, Marx was analyzing the way the economy
actually works, not the way it should ideally function. Value reflects a
major operating principle of a flawed system."
And we agree on this.
But in the passage you cite above, you say that value theory is "wrongly
dismissed" for having neglected natural resources. But it really does say
that air, virgin soil, and various environmental resources have *no* value.
It's wrong to dismiss the theory of value for that reason, because the theory
of value is correctly how capitalism actually works. But it is correct to
note that the value of various natural resources is zero.
However, instead, a major part of your article says that Marx had a
second value theory, involving reproduction costs, and that this value theory
is the one that takes account of the natural resources neglected by
capitalism. My point is that Marx didn't have any other such value theory,
and moreover that his reasoning leads to the conclusion that it wouldn't be
possible to successfully create one. His idea was, not to improve value, but
to overthrow the law of value (via social revolution).
Now, you are correct to write that Marx takes account of environmental
issues--indeed he is very concerned about them. But it is a mistake to say
that "value" takes account of environmental issues. And yet your article
states that Marx held that "a proper theory of value" would take account of
environmental values:
-------------------------------------
"While the discounting of conventional economics expresses a disregard
for the future, Marx's value theory implies a sensitivity to environmental
concerns. I am not thinking of the textbook value theory that simply
adds up the labor embodied in a commodity, but a richer kind of value
theory usually attributed to Marx -- but a fuller value theory that Marx
never had time to flesh out.
" Marx taught that a proper theory of value must reflect reproduction
costs rather than just the immediate production costs. This insight about
reproduction costs has two divergent implications, which are important
for understanding both capital and capitalism."
------------------------------------------
But reproduction costs are the basis of the ordinary Marxist theory of
value, elaborated in "Capital" and elsewhere. For example, Marx takes the
value of a commodity to be the *socially-necessary* labor needed for its
production (which includes the socially-necessary labor included in the raw
materials and some other things as well as the labor of the final worker).
Thus it isn't the amount of labor that is actually used by a particular
worker in producing a commodity that adds value to a product, but only the
socially-necessary labor. For example, if a worker dawdles over his work, or
for any other reason takes longer than the average amount of time needed for
his task, that doesn't add extra value to the commodity. All that matters is
the what your article calls the reproduction cost -- that is, the average
amount of labor needed to produce another copy of that commodity.
So it's hard for me to see how the concept of a reproduction cost
constitutes a framework for a fuller and richer theory of value than the one
that states that various parts of the environment have zero value.
Moreover, there isn't any way to create a fuller theory of value that
will take satisfactory account of environmental concerns or provide a basis
for truly rational planning. Any theory of value involves reducing things to
a single numerical index, so that they all become commensurable with each
other. Any theory of value implies that any two material things can be
equated; one material thing is equal to so much of another material thing.
Marx stresses that such numerical comparisons would mean that they are
identical qualitatively, when they really aren't. This is an important point
of Marx's, and I think that some thought will show that such a qualitative
equating of things inevitably results in downplaying environmental concerns.
-- Joseph Green
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
