Chris, Marx puts the dynamism in, in part, by saying that value represents
the cost of REPRODUCTION, not production. This is a key element in his
analysis of the devalorization of capital.
Chris Burford wrote:
> At 06/02/02 20:10 -0800, you wrote:
> >This definition of course does not capture t
Christian,
Can't follow what you're getting at. Please restate.
>Rakesh,
>
>>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):
>
>>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which
>>potentially objectified in a commodity has as its only and
>>necessary form of appearance units
>
>And how could Marx define the "absolute general law of capitalist
>accumulation" in the way he does in Ch XXV if his theory of value
>was not
>a) dynamic
>b )systemic?
>
>
>
>Mine is not an overimaginative reading of the overall thrust of
>Marx's approach, (although unimaginative readings of
[this was sent by mistake, before I finished it.]
>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<
Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as part od [of?] a theory
>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<
Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as part od [of?] a theory of crisis, as a component of his
account of commod
Rakesh,
>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):
>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which potentially objectified in
>a commodity has as its only and necessary form of appearance units of money.
This is what I meant yesterday by "debt and wages" as the terms
>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
>of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?
Not merely. Marx attemptedto use value theory to do a lot of work, e.g., as
part od a theory of crisis, as a component of his account of commodity
fetishism, as an accou
> > I discuss this is What's Wrong with Exploitation?, look it up, and see
>if
> > you disagree. jks
>
>What is wrong is endegenous accumulation which is enabled by "exploitation"
>as the profit source. And if endogenous accumulation is possible,
>capitalism
>can not experience crises. Rosa Lux
A wonderful story on heuristics.
Back in the fall of 1970 I got subpoened by a legislative commit6ee
investigating campus disorders. They were a bunch of buffoons -- as
shown beautifully by their interrogation of a professor of electrical
engineering from the U of I. He was a German emigre and st
JKS writes: >>> I have said as much here. But it's [the Marxian Law of Value
is] a far more limited heuristic than you seem to think. It's basically
useful for showing ina simple way that there's exploitation going on.
However, you can do this without it.<<<
quoth me: >>as I write on the margins
> I discuss this is What's Wrong with Exploitation?, look it up, and see if
> you disagree. jks
What is wrong is endegenous accumulation which is enabled by "exploitation"
as the profit source. And if endogenous accumulation is possible, capitalism
can not experience crises. Rosa Luxemburg unders
>
> > I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you
>seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina simple way that
>there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it.<
>
>as I write on the margins of term papers now and then, assertion is not the
Title: Re: [PEN-L:22419] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV
and
Why is domination functional for increasing
exploitation? The answer highlights a third problem with Roemer's
argument which turns on a crucial assumption of his models. In these
what workers sell is labour, not labour power, or,
equiva
>
> >I have argued this point ins ome detail in my What's Wrong with
> >Exploitation? Nous 1995,
>
>At this point I must once more apologise for having taken a somewhat snippy
>tone in this thread; it is entirely because I am an idiot. I seem to have
>acquired the belief that "What's Wrong with
>
>Charles writes:
> > Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort
>of
>ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
>...what ? Theoretical concept ? What is the term for other types of ideas
>( that are more than heuristic ) that are used
- Original Message -
From: "Davies, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:17 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22376] RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV
>I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic
than you
Justin wrote:
>I have argued this point ins ome detail in my What's Wrong with
>Exploitation? Nous 1995,
At this point I must once more apologise for having taken a somewhat snippy
tone in this thread; it is entirely because I am an idiot. I seem to have
acquired the belief that "What's Wrong
Devine, James wrote:
>I wrote: >>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's
>"laws" are dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in
>Justin's terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.<<
>
>Justin writes: > How do you get "deterministic" out of "precise
I wrote: >>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's
"laws" are dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in
Justin's terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.<<
Justin writes: > How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated
relatoon among
>
>The clearest non-LTV demonstration that there is exploitation is Joan
>Robinson's observation that ownership is not an activity therefore it is
>not
>a productive activity, so any rewards to ownership must come out of someone
>else's production. But without something like the LTV, we miss a
"Devine, James" wrote:
>
> Of course, Marx's value theory -- or law of value -- is
> also a heuristic.
>
Isn't that the primary function of most (or all) "laws"? The Law of
Value serves primarily to focus attention on (a) the historicity of
capitalism and (b) the oranization and temporal all
>I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you
>seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina simple way that
>there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it. jks
It's also useful for showing that the exploitation (defined in Roemer's
sens
>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
>dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
>terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.
How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated relatoon among
variables"? The laws of
>
>Obviously I am in general sympathy with Charles's defence of the LOV
>approach, but I think Justin helpfully pinpoints a line of demarcation. For
>Justin a "law" is a "precisely formulable generalization". Many might agree
>the merits of such an approach, but I am fairly confident that Marx an
Chris B. writes: >Obviously I am in general sympathy with Charles's defence
of the LOV approach, but I think Justin helpfully pinpoints a line of
demarcation. For Justin a "law" is a "precisely formulable generalization".
Many might agree the merits of such an approach, but I am fairly confident
t
25 matches
Mail list logo
