Regarding your first point, authors according to Biernacki, were paid by the page.
Goethe was upset that he was paid identically with the creator of some trash. The
only way to win an economic advantage was to produce more pages per hour. Perhaps,
this can lead to the creation of Internet com
Gil writes:
> But Michael, "number of pages produced" is a measure of labor
> performed, not labor power.
I was going to say something similar, but held off, since Michael doesn't seem to like
discussions of Marxian value theory. Note that "number of pages produced" isn't a very
good measure
But Michael, "number of pages produced" is a measure of labor performed,
not labor power. And in Marxian terms, "the value produced by labor" is to
some extent redundant, since to Marx labor *is* the substance of value,
no? It would be more accurate to say on the basis of your example that the
Bri
I don't know about Dickens, but yes, even Marx complained about having
to make his book long for the damn German publisher.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:10:13AM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
>
> that would explain the verbose style of German authors?
>
> but wasn't Dickens paid by the word?
>
> Jim D
>in German[y] publishers paid authors by the number
of pages they produced rather than by the sales of the books.<
that would explain the verbose style of German authors?
but wasn't Dickens paid by the word?
Jim D.
In a way, the violinists' demands are not as strange as they seem.
Richard Biernacki has argued that the Germans and the British had a
different conception of labor -- the Germans historically measured labor
by something like Marx's labor power; the British, by the value produced
by labor. For exa
MAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] More on the labor theory of value
JD wrote:
"Wagner's music is better than it sounds." -- Mark Twain
(paraphrased).
Mark Twain was making a perceptive comment on contemporary
American standards of musical performance, not a philistine
denegr
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] More on the labor theory of value
>
>
> JD wrote:
> "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." -- Mark Twain
> (paraphrased).
>
> Mark Twain was making a perceptive comment on contemporary
> American standards of musical performa
JD wrote:
"Wagner's music is better than it sounds." -- Mark Twain (paraphrased).
Mark Twain was making a perceptive comment on contemporary
American standards of musical performance, not a philistine
denegration of one of the greatest composers ever.
Shane Mage
"When we read on a printed page the
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] More on the labor theory of value
To be honest, this is just more evidence of German
overmanning. Does an orchestra really need two
trombone players, a timpanist and an oboist, each of
> of course, this isn't really about the labor theory of
> value, since the players produce a collective product
> with a collective labor process in which external
> benefits amongst workers imply that the effects of
> individual labors can't be separated. Being paid mo
of course, this isn't really about the labor theory of value, since the players
produce a collective product with a collective labor process in which external
benefits amongst workers imply that the effects of individual labors can't be
separated. Being paid more for more effort is
Isn't this being published a week too early?
We're being fiddled, say violinists
AP, Berlin
Wednesday March 24, 2004
The Guardian
Violinists at a German orchestra are suing for a pay rise on the grounds
that they play many more notes per concert than their musical colleagues
- a litigation that t
We're being fiddled, say violinists
AP, Berlin
Wednesday March 24, 2004
The Guardian
Violinists at a German orchestra are suing for a pay rise on the grounds
that they play many more notes per concert than their musical colleagues
- a litigation that the orchestra's director yesterday called "abs
At 05:42 PM 9/20/01 -0700, you wrote:
>< http://www.georgetown.edu/oweiss/ibn.htm >
This fascinating-looking article quotes Marx as saying "wages of labour
must equal the production of labour" (based on Eric Roll's citation). Did
he really say that? It doesn't fit what he said in CAPITAL, while
< http://www.georgetown.edu/oweiss/ibn.htm >
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 07:41PM >>>
>Brad, read the first two pages of Ricardo's _Principles_. A major
>mistake of the
>economics profession was in developing the theory of value for
>commodities that
>derive their value from scarcity, in other words, for exceptional
>cases, instead
>o
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 10:46PM >>>
In a message dated 9/25/00 4:11:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< CB: But "value" and "exchange-value" are not quite exactly the same thing
? >>
This has probably been answered, but no. Value is socially necessay abstract
la
I wrote:
><< Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a
>(poor) theory of why some people have property and some people have more
>than others in society. Every few years I try to convince people to
>change the name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his "labor theo
nstrumental value in nature whose value is relative to production of
intrinsic values but are not in themselves or intrinsically of any value.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000
Ken Hanly wrote:
> Surely it is too restrictive to distinguish only "use values" and "exchange
> values". Things can be intrinsically valuable to humans i.e. the enjoyment
> of a sunset, the taste of an apple,
(Preliminary: Neither Marxism nor any other ism is a TOE [theory of
everything])
"
Ian wrote:
>My sense is that this would be somewhat helpful in developing Marxian
>theories of enterprises [not Marxian theories of capitalist firms] which
>took legal factors into account. It is alternatives not more critique that
>needs to be done now. For the last ten months the critiques h
In a message dated 9/26/00 6:09:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor)
theory of why some people have property and some people have more than
others in society. Every few years I try to convince peop
JD>>
I think that for Marx, as with Locke, nature has no value _in society_
unless someone mixes labor with it. Both present theories of society when
they present their labor theories.
Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor)
theory of why some people have p
At 09:01 AM 9/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
> By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are
> sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values.
>=
>I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that
>even though nature is the source of
MAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:10 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:2341] the labor theory of value
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 12:01PM >>>
>
> By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are
> sources of use-values. Only human lab
Actually air is a good example of a use-value from nature that does not have
exchange-value because there is no human labor producing it for exchange. It is an
example of wealth that human labor is not a source of .
It's free, for now.
CB
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 08:35PM >>>
Of course
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 12:01PM >>>
By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are
sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values.
=
I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that
even though nature is the source of
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 05:49PM >>>
>At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
>> >Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
>>>value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
>>>enterprise.
>
>for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas
By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are
sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values.
=
I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that
even though nature is the source of use-values, it "in-itself" does or does
not h
By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are sources of use-values.
Only human labor is a source of exchange-values.
If an apple falls off of a tree and someone eats it, Nature was a source of that
use-value. But there is no such thing as an exchange-value falling directly off
rstand what is going on. If so
perhaps you could explain it in terms a non-economist might comprehend.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Brad DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:41 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:2285] Re: RE: R
At 04:16 PM 09/25/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Sounds a lot like Hayek's vision of the business cycle. But Hayek managed
>to do fine without the LToV. So what's its role in this Hayekian mechanism?
The Austrian edifice, including Hayek, is based on Marx and his immediate
followers (though they tried
I wrote:
>>Under simple commodity production (where there is neither wage-labor nor
>>surplus-value), the deviations between prices and values are _accidental_
>>(a disequilibrium phenomenon).
Brad opines:
>They are not a disequilibrium phenomenon. Scarce resource-based products
>*continue* to
In a message dated 9/25/00 4:11:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< CB: But "value" and "exchange-value" are not quite exactly the same thing
? >>
This has probably been answered, but no. Value is socially necessay abstract
labor time embodied in the commodity. Exchange
>
> If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
> make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one would say that
> the cost of air is determined by its cost of reproduction...
>
> Brad DeLong
===
So math has no value?
Ian
Brad, I think that there is some similarity between Hayek (Don't tell Justin)
and this part of Marx's theory. Hayek, you suggest, came to the right
conclusion without the labor theory of value. So what? I might propose a
biblical explanation for why a rock falls to the ground.
Of course, the cost of reproduction must be the least cost option. Oxygen
is a by product of growing plants. The technology Brad proposes is not
very cost-efficient.
>
> If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
> make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one wo
These two statements are not mutually contradictory.
Brad DeLong wrote:
> >
> >Under simple commodity production (where there is neither wage-labor
> >nor surplus-value), the deviations between prices and values are
> >_accidental_ (a disequilibrium phenomenon).
>
> They are not a disequilibrium
>
>Under simple commodity production (where there is neither wage-labor
>nor surplus-value), the deviations between prices and values are
>_accidental_ (a disequilibrium phenomenon).
They are not a disequilibrium phenomenon. Scarce resource-based
products *continue* to have prices in excess of
>Brad, read the first two pages of Ricardo's _Principles_. A major
>mistake of the
>economics profession was in developing the theory of value for
>commodities that
>derive their value from scarcity, in other words, for exceptional
>cases, instead
>of focusing on the general case, *reproducible
>The labor theory of value does not have to be very mysterious. In a
>sense, at least one part of Marx's theory can be read something like
>this: in order for a market economy to function "properly," prices must
>bear some relationship to the underlying values. Pric
Doug asked:>>>Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor
creates value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
enterprise.<<<
I said: >>for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only
labor creates value.<<
Brad DeLong, who has finally broken d
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
> Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
> value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
> enterprise.
Probably someone else has already responded to this more accurately
than I can -- I'm still struggling with nearly a thousa
What Brad writes is perfectly consistent with Marx's labor theory of value [with
one exception], although numerous comentators pretend to have discovered some
glaring defect. The exception is that things can have exchange value even if they
are not scarce -- I will leave out all the asterisks. C
Brad, read the first two pages of Ricardo's _Principles_. A major mistake of the
economics profession was in developing the theory of value for commodities that
derive their value from scarcity, in other words, for exceptional cases, instead
of focusing on the general case, *reproducible commoditi
>At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
>> >Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
>>>value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
>>>enterprise.
>
>for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only
>labor creates value.
But use values h
But Marx does not explicitly equate use-values with wealth in his opening
rebuttal sentence. Value, use-value and wealth are confused and entangled in
his retort. Is the source of use-values itself a use-value, a value or
wealth? Doug's query from a while back hits the last sentence below quite
ha
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
>"Natural elements entering as agents into production, and which cost
>nothing, no
>matter what role they play in production, do not enter as components
>of capital,
>but as a free gifts of Nature to capital, that is, as a free gift of Nature's
>productive power to labo
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 04:01PM >>>
At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
> >value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
> >enterprise.
for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only
At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
> >value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
> >enterprise.
for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only labor
creates value. Use-values refer to the
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 02:56PM >>>
Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
enterprise.
(((
CB: In the terms of _Capital_ human labor is the source of all exchange-value.
Use-value comes
No, you are thinking about the passage at the start of the Critique of the Gotha
Program where Marx attacks the idea that labor creates all wealth, not value. For
MArx, value is by definition embodied labor. --jks
In a message dated Mon, 25 Sep 2000 2:57:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwo
Vol. 3, p. 745 (International edition)
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 1:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:2244] Re: Re: Re: Re: the labor theory of value
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 A
Don't forget, Marx considered circus performance to be productive labor.
Louis Proyect wrote:
>Now wait just a gosh-darned minute. I regarded [being called a clown] a
compliment.
>Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
>value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
>enterprise.
>
>Doug
I stand corrected. However, I was referring to billionaire entrepreneurs
who after the revolution really need to be exiled to Catalina or some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>writes:
>
><< The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
> who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
>
> Louis Proyect >>
>
>Lo
Michael wrote:
>Fabian, you are perfectly welcome to unsub. Just send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>unsub pen-l.
>
>I would rather that you stay and try to dialogue in a more amicable
fashion. Carrol was wrong to have written the way he did. I responded
earlier regarding that post, but callin
Fabian, you are perfectly welcome to unsub. Just send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsub pen-l.
I would rather that you stay and try to dialogue in a more amicable fashion. Carrol
was wrong to have written the way he did. I responded earlier regarding that post,
but calling people clowns
I wrote:
> >BTW, you should know that (at least in e-mails), your style of writing
> conveys a heavy air of dogmatism. (That's why, I would guess, that Louis
> Proyect's response to you was so flippant.) It's not a good idea to enter
> an e-mail discussion with people you don't know and haven't
Fabian Balardini wrote:
>
> I put this thread on a bad track? How, by saying that after reviewing the
>debate on value theory at OPE-L and studying the TSS propositions for almost two
>years I have reached the conclusion that TSS opponents are irrational and dishonest?
yes, but the abov
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:40:03 Michael Perelman wrote:
>Fabian put this thread on a bad track. The labor theory of value does seem to
>raise passions. I thought that Jim's response to him was measured.
I put this thread on a bad track? How, by saying that after reviewing the
In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
One other relevant question concerns the "value of value"
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:11:03 Jim Devine wrote:
>BTW, you should know that (at least in e-mails), your style of writing
>conveys a heavy air of dogmatism. (That's why, I would guess, that Louis
>Proyect's response to you was so flippant.) It's not a good idea to enter
>an e-mail discussion
Justin wrote:
> << The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
> who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
>
> Louis Proyect >>
Fabian put this thread on a bad track. The labor theory of value do
In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
Louis Proyect >>
Lou loves to draw demarcation lines a
I wrote that instead of the TSS being rejected because (d) its opponents
don't understand it or (e) its opponents were ideological, as Fabian
asserted, > the TSS could be (a) logically wrong; (b) spinning models that
don't fit empirical reality; or (c) leaving out important components of
capi
>At 11:48 AM 09/23/2000 -0400, Jim Devine wrote:
>alternatively, the TSS could be (a) logically wrong; (b) spinning models
>that don't fit empirical reality; or (c) leaving out important components
>of capitalist reality. I, for one, don't know enough about the TSS to
>conclude that all of its
At 11:48 AM 09/23/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>I don't think you understand the critique by Kliman,McGlone and other TSS
>authors. Their work is not a defense of "orthodox Marxist value theory"
>but a radical break with it. In fact, I see their critique to be so
>destructive of what we know as Mar
Fabian:
I don't think you understand the critique by Kliman,McGlone and other TSS
authors.
LP:
Correct.
Fabian:
I see their main point as saying that the Marxist orthodoxy has adopted a
concept of value different from Marx's starting with Bortkiewicks first
formalization of the transformation pr
--
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:38:45 Louis Proyect wrote:
>The latest Science and Society has an interesting article (Rhetoric and
>Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism) by
>editor Dave Laibman. It is a response to one written by Andrew Kliman and
>Ted McGlone titled
Louis wrote:
>I doubt if this "transformation problem" will ever go away if it is posed
>in terms of a correct mathematical paradigm.
Right. Most of the literature wallows around in math that conceals more
than it reveals. Many authors actively eschew philosophical reflection
about what they'r
>Do you find this an impossible task? or should we give up mathematical
formalization altogether and go back to verbal dialectics?
>
>
>Fabian
The latest Science and Society has an interesting article (Rhetoric and
Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism) by
editor Dav
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:32:08 Michael Perelman wrote:
>The algebraic theories of the transformation problem don't make sense
>because they cannot account for the flow values from fixed durable
>capital goods.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my impression that so far (100+ years) the
al
> From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The labor theory of value does not have to be very mysterious. In a
> sense, at least one part of Marx's theory can be read something like
> this: in order for a market economy to function "properly," prices
The labor theory of value does not have to be very mysterious. In a
sense, at least one part of Marx's theory can be read something like
this: in order for a market economy to function "properly," prices must
bear some relationship to the underlying values. Prices don't eq
Berman, Dennis. 1999. What's a Worker Worth? Business Week (11
October): p. F 4.
What's the true measure of Man? Before you wax philosophical, glean
some practical wisdom from Jac Fitz-enz. His company, Saratoga
Institute, devises systems for measuring human capital -- in other
words, how muc
aka Dorman:
Even the Frakfurt School's criticism of pragmatism seems wanting
after Rorty, so I am not going to take issue with your own (pragmatic)
approach to ethics - even if I still think that Kant's ethical philosophy
was a theoretical breakthrough. Only want to remind you that Jeffrey
R
On Wednesday, July 7, 1999 at 11:44:29 (-0700) Peter Dorman writes:
> My own view is that reward for
>contribution may be pragmatically justified but is difficult to defend
>as a principal basis for deciding what is "fair". This is because most
>of the determinants
Roemer models the economy as a system of exchanges, which is the
criterion I suggested earlier for defining neoclassical economics. From
that perspective (and assuming single exchange equilibria) one can
criticize only the distribution of initial endowments, as he has done.
(His political econom
80 matches
Mail list logo
