What about value form?

[scullen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Cullenberg)]

In the most recent exchange between Gil and Jim, I want to support a
position that Jim (not that he would agree necessarily with what I write
here) has put forward regarding Marx's value theory and see if Gil has any
more thoughts on this.

Throughout Marx's work, he makes a distinction between value and value
form, as well as between surplus value and its many forms (there are
numerous quotes, if I need to substantiate this).  In short, the value and
surplus value dimension of Marx's analysis represent the "doings" of labor
(paid and unpaid) and the forms of value (prices of production, profit,
monopoly prices, interest) are distributive phenomena that redistribute
value and surplus value.  Thus, what any firm produces in terms of value
and surplus value is not necessarily what that firm receives. Therefore,
there will be a "quantitative" difference between value and its form, and
surplus value and its form (there is always a conceptual difference) for
any firm, but in the economy as a whole they will be equal in magnitude.
This equality is an identity, part of the accounting structure of Marx's
value analysis.

Thus, value and form of value are always used simultaneously by Marx as
moves his discourse through different levels of abstraction.  For a
detailed analysis of this see Bruce Roberts's article in "Capital and
Class."  Also, see more recently, Chai-on Lee's article in the CJE.
Finally, Baumol's article in 1974 in the JEL responding to Samuelson's
early and too oft repeated critique of Marx, I think, captures Marx's
transformation analysis well (Baumol, perhaps surprisingly, has a deeper
understanding of Marx than most.  His chapter on Marx in his and Blinder's
intro text is quite good, and by far the best in mainstream texts).

Baumol writes:  "The point of value theory may then be summed up as
follows:  goods are indeed produced by labor and natural resources
together.  But the relevant "social" source of production is labor, not an
inanimate "land."  Thus profits, interest, and rent must also be attributed
to labor, and their total is equal (tautologically) to the total value
produced by labor minus the amount consumed by labor itself.  The
competitive process, that appears to show that land is the source of rent
and capital the source of profits and interest, is merely a distributive
phenomenon and conceals the fact that labor is the only socially relevant
source of output.  This is the significance of the value and the
transformation anlaysis to Marx."  (JEL, 1974)

How does this fit in with Gil's and others understanding of Marx's project?
 It seems to me critical to make sense of that project, giving Marx's
analysis a consistent accounting framework.

Steve

Steve Cullenberg
Department of Economics
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521

(909) 787-5037 x1573     office
(909) 787-5685           fax
scullen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx   internet