>
>
> Philip Pilkington wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think the basis of this distinction comes down to value theory. Is the
> > price regulated by the amount of labour-input in the production sector or
> > does it "free-float" in the consumption sector? I'm with Doug on this
> one,
> > consumption is just as much a determinate as production. But one thing I
> > have been thinking about since the crisis is whether back in
> > Marx's/Ricardo's time prices WERE in fact set majorly by production costs
> > while in our time they're set increasingly by guesswork and consumer
> > sentiments. If this were the case and if most theories of political
> economy
> > rely heavily on notions of clean information and equilibrium this could
> > introduce serious distortions... Maybe...
>
> Value theory is NOT, repeat NOT, a theory of price. Value does not
> determine price. Value theory is a theory of social relations under
> capitalism.
>
>
This is precisely where I'll always try and root out the absolute bullshit of "orthodox" Marxists arguments. Value-theory is always conceived as being based on social relations, fair enough. But this is always a highly biased notion of social relations. It favours production over consumption, even as the latter becomes more and more important in Western capitalist societies.
As I said, I'm willing to give Marx the benefit of the doubt on this one. In his time production was probably FAR more important than consumption, but that's simple not the case for many people today. And I think that if this was focused on we may be able to come to some rather interesting conclusions. As I said above: if the power of price determination is increasingly being taken out of the hands of the capitalists then you probably have a problem inherent in that mode of production.