[lbo-talk] Definition of nation (was as if on cue)

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Wed Feb 16 09:13:17 PST 2011


My eyes are getting steadily worse & I more and more depend on ZoomText reading aloud to me. That makes it extremely difficult to determine who is saying what!

A question: Who if anyone on this list believes that value determines prices?

To believe that, it seems to me, is to believe that "Marx" is simply the German spelling of "Ricardo."

I'm not sure, in any case, that lbo-talk (or perhaps any e-list) is a context in which to debate conflicting interpretations of Marx. And note, interpreting Marx (or any text by anyone) belongs to philology, not economics.

Carrol

-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Peter Fay Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:41 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Definition of nation (was as if on cue)

I see in the referenced notes from last year lots of speculation on what Marx was probably thinking, lots of "more or less", "implicitly", "in effect", "edges toward", etc. There is a long and well-tread path of those trying to insert words and ideas into Marx's writings that are simply not there in order to further their own ends. In no way do I see Marx anywhere saying/implying/thinking about/almost saying that price plays any role whatsoever in determining value. This contradicts everything he ever wrote, including Capital and Theories of Surplus Value. In fact he says exactly the opposite, many times.

The one thing I've always liked about Marx is that he says exactly what he means and he means exactly what he says, and does not leave things implied, or almost-meant. (By the way, I've found the quotes from Penguin Publishers translation of Capital seems quite imprecise and at times inaccurate - try using the International Publishers translation - much cleaner.)

I see your main argument, as below, but see nothing to validate it. In fact to validate that argument, one must jettison the entire first volume of capital wherein he explains Value.

[MB]:"It becomes clear that supply and demand - as modern economics conceives them - actually do play a role in establishing long-run values and prices-of-production, not merely the fluctuations around them."

"Marx's problem with supply and demand analysis _as he knew it_ was that it didn't explain what determined supply and demand at any given price. In modern neoclassical terms, the answer is supply and demand _schedules_ which relate demand and supply to the range of possible prices.

"Marx more-or-less develops the idea of supply and demand schedules in the chapters on competition in Volume 3. It follows naturally from his emphasis that value depends on 'socially necessary' labour time"

Again, I don't see how one trying to predict the price fluctuations of commodities in the future marketplace by using supply/demand theory (successfully or not) would provide any ammunition to invalidate the labor theory of value. This is a really old and worn argument, I'm sure everyone here knows, though apparently not settled in some minds.

-PF

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Mike Beggs <mikejbeggs at gmail.com> wrote:


> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Peter Fay <peterrfay at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Huh?
> > The labor theory of value dubious? Did we just flush down the loo 250
> years
> > of Smith, Ricardo and Marx?
> >
> > So the labor theory of value would be replaced by... what? Marginal
> > utility, which has always seemed to me closer to a divining rod than a
> > theory? Or would we just abandon any attempt to explain value, as in
> modern
> > economics? Is this generally agreed here, that the labor theory of
value
> is
> > somehow passé?
>
> Hey Peter,
>
> This was my take when this came up last year - that Marx actually
> pointed the way out of the labour theory of value... and you can look
> around the thread in the archives:
>
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2010/2010-July/009802.html
>
> Mike Beggs
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- Peter Fay ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list