labor theories of value

[Jim Devine <JNDF%LMUACAD.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that it's great that people are trying to be clearer about
what they mean by "the labor theory of value." Is it the embodied
labor theory of price? the labor-measure theory of value, the MTV,
or what? What follows is a simple typology of different labor
theories of value, in hopes of clarifying the debates.

1. The embodied-labor theory of price (ELTP):

a) "traditional Marxian version": market prices incessantly
fluctuate around "centers of gravity" corresponding to prices of
production. These prices of production (roughly the same as
Smith's "natural prices") are hypothetical equilibrium prices, in
the sense that the profit rate is equalized amongst sectors.
On the other hand, values are not long-term equilibrium prices of
production. Rather, the vector of relative prices of production is
connected to relative values, in a historical, logical, and/or
macroeconomic way (depending on the author).

b) Farjoun/Machover/Cottrell/Cockshott version: ejects prices of
production and similar equilibrium conceptions from the center of
theoretical concern. Market prices are directly related to embodied
labor values, though not exactly. Rather, the relationship is
stochastic.

2. The Sociological Interpretation of Value (SIV): Devine's "law of
value" and perhaps Lebowitz's MTV.  Here values are seen as
revealing social relations of production and exploitation, as part
of a socio-economic heuristic.

The most important question "does the SIV hold water?" is not
addressed here. Rather, the focus is on the posited purposes of
value in this interpretation. The ELTP sees its theory first and
foremost one of prices. The SIV interprets value as a tool for
breaking through the fetishism of commodities to understand the
socialized nature of capitalist production. To my mind, the SIV does
not automatically contradict either 1(a) or (b):  it can be
complementary.  I, for one, prefer version (b), since it gets away
from the tyranny of equilibrium conceptions, fitting with a dynamic
vision of capitalism.

Marx is not as clear as modern academics when it comes to the pupose
of his value concepts. Based on chapter 1 of vol. I of CAPITAL and
the totality of the three volumes, I interpet Marx as having the
following purposes:

a. What are the basic principles of commodity production, i.e.,
the nature of value, use-value, exchange-value, and money? (see
especially the first three chapters of vol I, plus the CRITIQUE
OF POLITICAL ECONOMY.)

b. Where do profits come from under capitalism? (vol. I, ch. 3 and
after: Marx's theory of exploitation.)

c. How are prices determined? How and why do they deviate from
values under capitalism? (vol. III: the transformation problem
and all that.)

d. Why and how are profits distributed among capitalists? (vol.
III: ditto.)

e. How are prices connected to values, and individual profits
connected to aggregate surplus-value, despite the price/value
deviation? (vol. III: the total value = total price and total
surplus-value = total profit rules)

f. What are the laws of motion of capitalism? (vols. I-III.)

The assumption that price = value is also used to simply the
analysis of the circulation of commodities in vol. II.

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   BITNET: jndf@lmuacad    INTERNET: jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
if bitnet address fails, try jndf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx