[OPE-L:5654] Re: Re: Reduction

[Steve Keen <s.keen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The problem is simply put Rakesh:

If you believe that commodities can be resolved into labour and labour
alone, then you believe in magic.

Cheers,
Steve
At 04:29 PM 5/23/01 Wednesday, you wrote:
> re Steve's 5648
>
> Steve, let's say there is no exit from this "infinite regress" criticism
> by defining the value transferred from the  the means of production as the
> value of the money needed to buy them since if we are assuming that money
> is a commodity (say gold) there will always be a means of production
> element that cannot be reduced to labor. Just like the means of production
> themselves, the money commodity cannot be reduced to labor alone.
>
> I must say Allin's response that this is a trivial criticism seems correct
> however.
>
> You argue not:
>
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> Why? One can eliminate the commodity or means of production part of the
> causal process simply by underlining that the means of production are
> themselves objectified labor. Then the value of commodities resolves into
> objectified labor. there is only one component to commodity
> value--objectified abstract labor.
>
>
>
> > > 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)
>
> Marx of course agrees that labor is not the only source of wealth; nature
> plays its part. For Marx, abstract labor however is the only source of
> value; means of production can be reduced to objectified labor so the
> putative commodity residual is then only objectified labor.
>
> Where exactly do you, Joan Robinson, Ajit, and Arun Bose see the problem?
>
> Thanks for the clarification, Rakesh

Home Page: http://www.debunking-economics.com
            http://bus.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
            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