Re: Re: Interesting new book?

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 14:35 26/03/01 -0500, Barkley wrote:
>       For those interested in more detailed background,
> Steve held a seminar on his book over on pkt several
> months ago.  It was quite lively with extensive commentary
> and discusssions.  Much of the book is very punchy and
> it is well written, but in places it kind of gets lost on tangencies
> and wanders about too much.
>      I apologize that I do not remember the website address
> for the pkt archives.

This appears to be a lead:

http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/authors/Keen.Steve/

One of these has the following abstract from an article significantly

The demise of the labour theory of value:

>>>
Preface: Abstract

The concept of "use-value" and the question of the source
of value in Marx's economics are analysed. The traditional
interpretation of Marx, which argues that use-value plays no role
in his economics, is detailed. The evidence on Marx's employment
of the concept is investigated. It is concluded that use-value
was an integral part of Marx's analysis of the commodity, with
the dialectic between use-value and exchange value being the
primary method by which Marx derived the source of surplus value.
The traditional interpretation is criticised in the light of this
evidence.
<<<

My recollection was that Steve was a particular cheerful and polite debater
who was unshakeably convinced that he had found a logical flaw in Volume 1
of Marx's Capital, I think Chapter 7.

It was if I recall correctly that the use value of machinery, or perhaps it
was improved machinery, contributed to surplus value.

His mistake I think is symptomatic of a world economy in which the constant
revolutionising of the means of production is so rapid that what Marx
called "relative surplus value" might be seen as the substance of surplus
value, which for Marx came from the exploitation of labour power, whatever
the speed of the change of the means of production.

While people have found mistakes in Marx's calculations and formulae, the
idea that more than a century later someone would find a logical fallacy in
a core argument of Marx, seemed to me highly improbable. The debate needs
to be about how applicable Marx's ideas are today.

I think it is true that because of the nature of Marx's presentation not a
great deal of emphasis is given to how the fundamental forces interact in a
world in which the means of production differ so markedly from one country
to another, and are indeed constantly changing at a very rapid rate. That
is not the same as saying there is a simple logical fallacy in how Marx
handles the categories of use value and exchange value.

As for the current book, the quoted blurb suggest maybe Steve is relying
too much again on thinking he can see through faulty logic.

"explains why economists think the way they do, and points out the flaws in
their thinking which they don't realise, don't appreciate, or just plain
ignore."

I suspect neither marxism nor neo-classical economics will be defeated by
one intelligent individual thinking he has found logical flaws, almost alone.

It may be however, that the handling of use value, including subjective use
value, and the contrast with exchange value, remains fundamental to the
critique of modern political economy, if we are to see the economy
fundamentally as a social relationship, which should once again be brought
under the control of the real producers.

Chris Burford

London