On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:33 PM, John Gulick wrote:
> Yeah. Exchange value and surplus value are "concrete abstractions." Market prices and capitalist
> profits are empirical phenomena. Even if you're an orthodox value theory zealot, you recognize that
> the former and the latter don't directly map onto one another, because of the way in which firm
> and sectoral differentials in the organic composition of capital reallocate surplus value. In any event,
> after toying around with this stuff semi-seriously for several years as a lad, I decided that one is
> far better off using value theory as a heuristic device for analyzing the accumulation process, the
> class struggle, etcetera, and nothing more. In other words, I went agnostic. IMO, you're better off
> spending your time stamp collecting, spelunking, crocheting. But perhaps this one of those "don't do
> as I did, do as I say" tales that will fall on deaf ears.
I've long thought the whole value theory/transformation problem debate was a total goddamn waste of time. Everyone who tries to put some numerical meat on the bones of the theory comes up with different results. Trying to specify the OCC seems to me an utterly vain pursuit. To me, value theory is a story about the origins of the phenomenal categories of profit, interest, and rent in exploited labor, but once you start taking that all literally, you'll end up a politically marginal cultist.
Doug