[OPE-L:5648] Reduction

[Steve Keen <s.keen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This message from me was initially bounced because of a change to my
internal email system.

Cheers,
Steve

> To: ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: Steve Keen <s.keen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L:5642] Re: the infinite regression critique
> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105221128480.31195-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  du>
> References: <001401c0e2bd$72b16aa0$3f082e3f@hppav>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Allin,
>
> Think again on this one please: the
> point is that, no matter how hard you attempt to reduce any commodity to
> labour alone, there will always be a commodity residue. It is not the issue
> of finding the limit to a convergent series, but the impossibility of
> eliminating one component of a causal process.
>
> The same procedure could of course be carried out using capital rather than
> labour--reducing all today's labour to its commodity inputs, and so on, ad
> infinitum. But the same process would *never* be able to show that
> commodities were produced by commodities alone--there would *always* be a
> non-zero labour residue.
>
> The point of the critique is that, if value is somehow the "essence" of
> capitalism/commodities, then that essence must contain both commodities and
> labour. Arun Bose took this critique to its (typically ignored) zenith in
> "Marx on inequality and exploitation". His conclusion was rather similar to
> the 'heretical' one I reach:
>
> "labour is never the only or the main 'source of value' in any system which
> is defined as capitalist on the basis of a reasonable set of axioms...
> Labour is not, immediately or ultimately, the only or main source of price,
> surplus or profit... Labour and commodities are the two sources of wealth,
> value, price, of surplus value and profit." (Bose 1980)
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
> At 01:32 AM 5/23/01 Wednesday, you wrote:
> >Jerry quotes Rakesh (quoting Carchedi, quoting Joan Robinson!),
> >
> > > I think Ajit is saying that Hegelian (sic) value theory has no
> > > answer to Joan Robinson's challenge (dubbed the infinite
> > > regression critique by Carchedi): "the constant capital was
> > > produced in the past by labour time working with then pre-existing
> > > constant capital and so on, ad infinitum backwards. It therefore
> > > cannot be reduced simply to a number of labour hours that can be
> > > added to the net value of the current year. And there is no
> > > advantage in doing so." quoted in Carchedi, 1990, p. 96.
> >
> >And asks:
> >
> > > What other answers have been offered in the literature to the
> > > "infinite regression critique"?
> >
> >This critique seems trivial, dumb.  It's hard to believe that Joan
> >Robinson didn't know how to find the limit of a convergent geometric
> >series.
> >
> >Allin.
>
> Home Page: http://bus.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
>              http://www.debunking-economics.com
>              http://www.stevekeen.net
> Dr. Steve Keen
> Senior Lecturer
> Economics & Finance
> Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
> School of Economics and Finance
> UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY
> LOCKED BAG 1797
> PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797
> Australia
> s.keen@xxxxxxxxxx 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
> Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088

Home Page: http://bus.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
            http://www.debunking-economics.com
            http://www.stevekeen.net
Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
School of Economics and Finance
UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY
LOCKED BAG 1797
PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797
Australia
s.keen@xxxxxxxxxx 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088