Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 00:42:36 EST

--- Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
> Ajit wrote
> >
> >Well! If you are referring to Sraffa's book, then,
> of
> >course, Sraffa is not developing any causal theory
> >there. The function of his book is to show that the
> >neoclassical supply function, which is built on a
> >supposed causal relation between prices and methods
> of
> >production is illegitimate.
> So capital is not a factor with a price but an index
> of
> a conflictual social relation?
Capital, as used by economic theory, is an irrational
term. One should instead say, means of production.
Marx sometimes uses capital in the same vein as
economic theory, since he thought he could aggregate
all means of production in terms of labor time. But at
many times the term for him refers to the relation
between the calss of capitalists and the wage laborers
but not as an "index of conflictual social relations".
> >  But this does not mean
> >that Sraffa is saying that there cannot be any
> causal
> >theory of change.
> But are you saying that or implying that below?
> Confused here. I thought you were chiding Michael L
> for not having
> a causal theory but then you seem to suggest that
> attribution of
> causes is superstitious?

How can I chid Michael L! What I was humbly pointing
out was that he is developing a causal explanation,
but his explanation turns out to be circular--a no!
no! for any causal theory. My reference to Hume and
early Wittgenstein was only to point out that causal
explanations as such are neither empirical nor
logical, they are implied by the scientific theories.
> >  But you should keep it in mind that
> >Hume's empiricist philosophy rejected any
> >philosophical basis to causality. For Hume
> causality
> >is nothing but a belief or habit of mind. Hume's
> >challenge on causation has never been answered. All
> >Kant could do is to make the relationship of cause
> and
> >effect a priori. From a logical perspective,
> >Wittgenstein in the Tractatus declared that
> >'Superstition is nothing but a belief in causal
> >nexus'.
> On a more ontological level Lewontin seems correct
> that the states
> and motions of living organisms are the consequence
> of many
> intersecting causal pathways, thereby making it
> unusual that normal
> variation in any one of these pathways has a strong
> effect on the
> outcome. Given the multiplicity of causal chains,
> all of weak
> individual influence in their normal condition,  it
> is difficult to
> ascribe a cause to some effect since putative cause
> and its effect
> will not likely seen to vary together.
I don't think Lewontin even touches upon the nature of
problems both Hume and Wittgestein are dealing with.
> >Mathematical logic does not admit of
> >causality. Because no causal proposition can be
> made
> >with certainty.
> You are not counting as a piece of mathematical
> logic or as truly
> causal those statistical theories of causality as
> developed in
> thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, Pearsonian
> regressions, etc?

They are not mathematics. They use mathematics.
> There is a lot that I would like to read and figure
> about the theory
> of causality in the social sciences: Mario Bunge,
> Causality;
> Causality in Crisis, ed. Stephen Turner, Fritz
> Ringer Max Weber's
> methodology (presumably uses Wesley Salmon's theory
> of causality),
> Max Adler's attempt to differentiate causes that
> work independently
> of consciousness from those that work in
> consciousness to those that
> work through consciousness, Hans Kelsen's attempts
> to link our
> conceptions of causality to juridical notions (I
> think Stephen P
> Turner explores how ideas about attribution in legal
> sense
> undergirded the lawyer Max Weber's notions of
> causality), Gramsci's
> critique of mis application of mechanical causality
> to social
> phenomena. But these are a very different set of
> concerns than those
> that you have helpfully expressed.
> It also seems that Keynes gave up on any causal
> theory of investment, no?

I would not like to say anything about Keynes without
studying him closely. He appears to be neither here
nor there in lots of ways. Cheers, ajit sinha
> Yours, Rakesh
> >Cheers, ajit sinha
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> >

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 16 2003 - 00:00:01 EST