law of value -- thanks from jim O'Connor

[Barbara Laurence]

Thanks for the help.  And a big hello, Shane.  It's been awhile.
I forgot that Marx called the "law of value" what I see as a tautology,
i.e., that at any given time, cet. par., society needs so much labor time
to produce so many products.  An input-output model works here.  But I
don't see this as a "law" still less a "theory" as Roger suggested.  Theory
explains why things work when they work, why they don't when they don't.
This opens the way for theory to include systemic contradictions, e.g.,
overaccumulation  and also social movements, e.g., class struggle, etc.
I can't see that Marx's "law of value" explains anything, but merely
describes a particular perspective one should or can take on the "economy,"
a particular way of loking at the eonomy.  A Leontiefian (spelling?) way.
A "law" if this word is still useful at all, is some kind of causal
relationship, preferably a dialectical causation.  A Raider said Sunday
that while the Ravan's defense is great, they lost because the Raider's
offense was poor.  Of course the offense was poor because the other team's
defense was awesome.  There's no practical way to distinguish between the
two explanations in terms of causation.  And why would anyone want to,
anyway?  Only those who have erector set mentalities.  Same is true of
nature and nurture (of Deacon vs. Chomsky).  In my work, I'm thinking that
the law of value, at its simplest, says that when workers productivity
increases, the value of their LP declines (more precisely, the cost of
wages of the value content of the consumption basket).  This presupposes
competition, flexible prices, etc., etc.  At my age I've forgotten more of
Marx than I remember, so it may very well be true that he also called this
the law of value.  Workers are impoverished because their labor is more
productive.  NB that cet. par this means real wages rise, at any given
money wage.  Of course the determinants of the size and quality of the
consumption basket (as contrasted to its value content) are never discussed
by Marx, beyond stating that the standard of life prevailing when someone
is newly proleatrianized tends to dictate the size and quality of wage
goods purchased.

The important thing I'm working on is, LP is but a fictitious commodity; is
reproduced outside of the general circuit of capital; hence the importance
of cultural factors and theories of consumerism and all that.