[OPE-L:5571] Re: Re: Ockam's Razor

["Andrew Brown" <Andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all,

On 14 May 2001, at 9:43, Fred B. Moseley wrote:

>
> I have not had time to read carefully the interesting discussion of
> Ockam's Razor and value-form theory.  But on a quick reading, I agree with
> Paul C: value-form theory does not have a theory of price or a theory of
> surplus-value (as a quantity).  I don't think Nicky or Geert or Michael
> have responded on this point (please correct me if I am wrong).  I have
> argued the same point on OPEL a while back.
>

Paul C.'s formulation raises extra issues in that it entails a
necessary tie between 'prediction' and 'causation'. Fred's
formulation perhaps raises less additional issues. To elaborate: the
question to Nicky, Geert and Michael concerns their apparent lack
of a *theory* of the *quantitative* determination of surplus value. I
remember the previous discussion on OPEL to which Fred refers.
The last I remember was Fred reproducing an equation for
aggregate value added put forward by Geert and Michael:

Y=mL

where
Y: aggregate value added
m: monetary expression of labour
L: abstract labour time

It seems that, according to value-form theory, Y and mL are on a
par and *mutually determine* one another. Indeed it maybe that the
left hand side of the equation dominates the right hand side [if 'form
determination' is taken in a quantitative as well as qualitative
sense]. That being so, the *magnitude* of value added is not, in
any sense, explained by reference to the magnitude of abstract
labour. Rather, we need further specification of how 'mutual
determination' occurs before we have a quantitative
theory/explanation at all.

At the same time I accept that value form theory can be (and in
fact is) very useful despite the apparant fact that it does not have a
quantitative theory of surplus value.

Can we all agree on this?

Can we also agree that a theory which *both* reconstructs the
qualitative characteristics *and* theorises the quantitative
determination of surplus value (and other economic magnitudes) is
desirable (if such a theory is possible)? For, the magnitudes of
profits, wages, interest and rent are *extremely* important in our
society. Imo, the lack any general theory of these magnitudes
*severely* limits the scope of any social theory, therefore.

Fred mentions that his own theory (interpretation of Marx) attempts
such a quantitative and qualitative enterprise.

At least on my grasp of it, the work of Fine and 'followers' of Fine
also develops such a two-fold grasp of the CMP (though it does it
in a different way to Fred).

Furthermore, the work of Fred and of Fine has the merit of
*including* the necessity of money, the importance of the
appearance form of value, even as it emphasises that the
substance of value is abstract labour. Thus it does not fall foul of
the charge that it ignores or plays down the importance of form (in,
say, a Ricardian fashion).

At any rate, Fine's stuff would seem worthy of more attention in
debates on value, given the above.

Best wishes,

Andy