>>> cns at cats.ucsc.edu 01/17/01 10:52PM >>>
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.
(((((((((((
CB:What would be an example of a law to you ?
Nikitin states the law of value as a little bit more than an tautology:
"The law of value is the economic law of commodity production in accordance with which commodities are produced and exchanged in correspondence with the quantity of socially necessary labor expended on making them."
So what your statement of it above leaves out is the exchange. We are talking about the law of exchange-value , here.
In this context , "law" means a principle upon which economic conduct, specifically exchange of commodities in certain quantities for certain quantities of other commodities , is based. As Nikitin says elsewhere "regulated". So, in this sense of "regulated" , "law" means something similar to a jurisprudential law, however it has not been declared by a legislator or legislature. It is a sort of unconscious social contract ( but not exactly a legal contract, oh these jurisprudential metaphors in science and philosophy)
The jag that comes in is regarding price or the monetary expression of value, the discrepancy of which Marx accounts for by reference to the distortion of supply and demand, et al. ( I believe this issue underlies the "transformation problem") .
(((((((((
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.
(((((((((((((((
CB: Yea, labor power is produced by caring labor. Seeing following article on caring labor:
MP: Doug Henwood has posted a very interesting URL regarding feminist economics to lbo-talk. The story appeared in the Boston Globe.
http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/1-14/featurestory1.shtml
((((((((
"Folbre is seeking a deeper understanding of the poor job conditions and relatively low pay associated with what she calls "caring labor" - day care, nursing, and care of the elderly, which are professions dominated by women. Caring labor, she argues, illuminates basic flaws in the market mechanisms that are sacrosanct to her fellow economists. In standard economic theory, each individual is a "rational man," pursuing his or her own self-interest. In society, neo-classical economists argue, self-interests merge to create the best outcome for everyone. But, Folbre asks, if markets work so well, why are wages for child-care workers so low that the profession is plagued with high turnover, which makes it difficult for these caregivers to form good relationships with the children? "
(((((((((((
CB: Caring labor is the source of labor power. Labor power is the source of labor . Labor is the only source of new exchange value ( Nature is a source of new use-value). Caring labor is the only source of the only source of new exchange-value.