Re: measurement of abstract labor

From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 09:41:44 EDT

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, ajit sinha wrote:

> Fred, Let me make three points:
> 1.      What you refer to as Marx’s theory is not Marx’s
> theory. It is your interpretation of Marx’s theory,
> which I have characterized as nonsense. If Marx had a
> theory like your suggestion, then today no body would
> have heard of a guy called Karl Marx.
> 2.      One does not build sense on the basis of nonsense.
> Or, in other words, you cannot build castles in the
> air. You need solid ground to do so. Thus a theory of
> surplus value, a theory of falling rate of profits, a
> theory of technical change, etc. built on a nonsense
> theory of value is a non-starter.

More empty assertions and accusations, with substance.

> 3.      Now, to just a few specifics : According to you,
> Marx simply assumes a particular amount, a certain
> hours of SNLT, for the value of a commodity. Again,
> according to you, this amount of SNLT cannot be
> observed or determined by observable variables. Now,
> tell me how can you tell whether the value of a
> commodity has increased or decreased after technical
> change and by how much ?
> It is always great to be in Paris ! Cheers, ajit sinha

Marx's theory can tell you whether technical change increased or decreased
the value of a commodity, but not precisely how much.  

And, more importantly, Marx's theory also provides a substantial argument
about the effects of technical change on the rate of surplus-value, the
composition of capital, and the rate of profit.  It also explains
conflicts over the working day and over the intensity of labor.

Marx's theory is certainly not nonsense, no matter how many times you
assert it.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT