Jim on TRPF

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I appreciated the reasoned way Jim took up my observations on
the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall (TRPF).

Since Jim has also recently posted a notice about the US SWP,
with which some contributors have had differences, I would like to
note that his contributions IMO on the value debate have consistently
tried to be reasoned and non-sectarian. While people may wish to
differ on some issues, I hope they will continue to treat Jim's
contributions on their merits.

First my reference to chaos theory.
Jim is concerned about the terminology but I feel in
agreement with him about the pattern of the processes that are
occuring. I was indeed deliberately alluding to the unfortuately
named chaos theory. This notes that at some stages only, there is
a pattern of chaos, formless turmoil. More often the theory notes that
in certain non-linear systems there are characteristic repeated patterns,
although ones that repeat in a broadly predictable not a mechanically
predictable way. It also notes that phase shifts may occur, from one
overall pattern to another. E.g the end of full employment in the "West".

I think on the essence of the economic processes that we say lie
behind marxist theory, we are agreed.

The central point in Jim's reply to me, however is to take me up
on my central paragraph, which I agree is not phrased totally clearly.

Nevertheless I think some points are also confused in Jim's reply:

>>>>>
   When Chris says that "a higher proportion of the total
abstract labor of a society will be done with the aid of
that technology," I believe he means that the ratio
between the means of production and the active work force
will grow, i.e., that each worker will handle more
productive equipment and will process more raw materials
as productive technology improves.
   But the means of production, both the apparatus of
machinery, tools, etc, as well as the raw materials and
semi-finished parts that pass bodily into the finished
product, have a mass as well as a value.
   Their mass is measured physically as extension, weight,
etc. Their value is measured by the amount of labor,
measured in hours, that is required to produce them.
   Marx argued that, not only would the mass of the
means of production grow in relation to living labor,
but also its value would grow as well. This is where
some modern writers disagree.
<<<<<

I did not actually intend the meaning that Jim attributes to me:
I was referring to an economy operating with increasingly sophisticated
technology. I am not sure whether this misunderstanding matters for the
debate.

I am more dubious about Jim's emphasis on mass of the means of
production. What is important is not physical mass. It is the use
values created and whether increased technology creates increased
use values. The actual mass of a microchip is smaller than a transistor,
just as a transistor was smaller than a valve, but the use value of each is
much greater.

Although some marxists say the value (exchange value) of a commodity,
is measured in the number of hours used to produce it, I do not agree that
this is a proper reading of Marx. It leaves out the concept of abstract labour.
The number of hours is only a paper exercise assuming that the labour
employed is the average, socially necessary labour time. But the actual concrete
labour relates to abstract labour in a way that is impossible to determine.
The worker may be stronger or weaker in all sorts of characteristics. The
work-site may be more or less efficient, and the standard of abstract labour
is always shifting and by definition unknown. IMO it is therefore very
important to unphold the fuzzy logic nature of the marxist concept of abstract
labour.

What I most disagree with Jim about, is the contention that the exchange
value of the total society increases with technology. The use value does:
The exchange value, by definition remains static. By shocks and other
adjustments, the total monetary expression of all the commodities of the
society and their distribution shudders back to the total exchange value
of the society. This may be concealed by monetary inflation, but what we
are observing is a ceiling which can only be breached temporarily and that
at the cost of a more violent falling back.

(Perhaps Jim should take his analogy about mass further. It is only in
a gravitational field that objects with mass have weight. It is only
in a commodity exchanging society that exchangeable use values, have
an exchange value that fluctuates around the abstract labour time
needed to produce them relative to the total abstract labour time of the
society as a whole. (It is like a gravitational field.)

I fundamentally disagree with approaching the TRPF as anything but a
tendency which has other countervailing tendencies which produce a fluctuating
and at times chaotic business cycle over decades of capitalism.

Only at certain times is the system especially fragile and particularly
vulnerable to revolutionary overthrow. On the contrary, viewed long term,
as Marx argued, the system has its own mechanisms for curing its problems.

Rather than trying to justify the TRPF as an isolated phenomenon, we need
to understand the dynamic better, in a less empiricist way than the
conventional economists, and find ways to weaken, and fundamentally to end
the system of the private owenership of the means of production, which are in
reality a collective, not a private phenomenon.

I hope this clarifies differences constructively.

Regards,

Chris B,

London.

PS Jim, after a glitch in downloading your paper from the archives, now
sorted out by Malgosia, I have obtained it, and will give it some
attention.




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------