--
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 21:10:40 Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
>>Marx remains open
>here to one of Ian Steedman's major criticisms (the other being the
>problem of joint production),
One of the many interesting outcomes of the recent debate on value theory (for a review of recent and current debates on value theory go to the archives of Outline of Political Economy list at: http://plato.plato-net.or.jp/usr/okano/OPE/) is that Steedman's criticisms are valid regarding the TRADITIONAL interpretation of Marx. But to say that this interpretation of Marx (that is the traditional interpretation of value based among other premises on the notion that value of outputs are equal to value of inputs ignoring the notion of time, something which 'Marxist' economists have conciously or unconciously acquired from the general equilibrium paradigma of simultaneous equations as part of their training as economists) is the most accurate interpretation of Marx is just an opinion regarding the choice of analytical interpretations available. Since Marx is not around to tell us whether the traditional interpretation is the best way to represent his ideas or not, it remains debatable as to which of all the interpretation available is the most accurate or the closer to Marx's method. To state that Marx's method is best represented by an interpretation that for the last 80 years hasn't being able to provide a prop! er presentation of the falling rate of profit (or, which is the same, to have refuted Okishio's theorem through a value based presentation of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) or not being able to properly deal with the 'transformation problem', that is to support the traditional interpretation as the most reliable representation of Marx's theories is to be extremely unfair to such great thinker. Therefore, your statement that:
'Marx remains open here to one of Ian Steedman's major criticisms'
should be re-phrased to read:
'the traditional interpretation of Marx remains open here to one of Ian Steedman's major criticisms'
Why is this a crucial point?? Because there is at least one other interpretation of Marx to which Steedman's major criticisms, including the 'problem' of joint production, doesn't apply, the Temporal Single System interpretation. For papers based on the TSS interpretation of value theory go to:
http://www.gre.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt/
or maybe Andrew can provide us with a short summary of the TSS main points and contributions to the recent and ongoing value debate.
So if Steedman's critique and recomendation of substituting the labor theory of value (what he identifies as Marx's theory of value) for a Sraffian use-value theory of value applies to a mistaken interpretation of Marx, his criticism and recommendations are meaningless regarding Marx's method in Capital and regarding those interpretations that are able to duplicate the same results. The debate then is no longer between Steedman and 'Marxists' but between different interpretations of Marx's value theory fighting to occupy a side along the yet unsurpassed superior dialectical/historical/materialistic methodology found in Capital.
>From my point of view this is a great first step forward to get back to the unfinished business of further developing the ideas found in Capital, TSV, Grundisse, etc. It is also a great step in unveiling the many traps that honest thinkers can fall into by mistaken Marx's rich methodology with that of other not so great thinkers like Ricardo, Sraffa and Walras.
Fabian
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com