Re: measurement of abstract labor

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 15:32:54 EDT

--- Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> wrote:
> 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.
> Comradely,
> Fred

Fred, Marx's theory is definitely not nonsense, but
your interpretation of it is. By repeatedly asserting
that whatever you assert for Marx is naturally Marx's
theory and I, of course, don't know Marx's theory, you
have been showing your arogance so much for so long
that I have no option than to be nasty to you in my
responses. As you know it well that my Ph.D is on
Marx's theory of value and I can claim to have some
serious understanding of this problem than you and
many others on this list can. So please get off your
high horses and start calling what you say as your
interpretation rather than Marx's theory.

Now to some specificity: Your theory cannot determine
surplus value. It cannot determine organic composition
of capital. It cannot determine whether a commodity
has increased or decreased in value after technical
change in the system, let alone by how much. In other
words, your theory cannot do anything that you think
it can. You simply have not thought through the
problem, as I have. Just think through the issue with
calm head and you would realize that what you have
been saying boils down to nonsense. Cheers, ajit sinha


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 09 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT