I have been reading Steve Keen's 1990 doctoral thesis. As I understand it, Marx explains the origin of surplus value, in Capital, by the distinction between the use value and exchange value of labor power. The use value is the labor expended under the capitalist's direction. This labor is generally more than the labor embodied in labor power. The labor embodied in labor power, under volume 1 assumptions, is the money wage.
Keen argues that Rudolf Hilferding's treatment of skilled labor is an application of Marx's use value/exchange value dialetic. Skilled labor is to be explained by the training that goes into upgrading a worker's skill. The value created by skilled labor is not to be explained by the transfer of the labor embodied in skilled labor as being depreciated over time. Hilferding writes, "The labor of the technical educator thus transmits, not only value (which manifests itself in the form of the higher wage), but in addition its own value-creating power." The value created by a skilled worker in a hour of time is not required to be in the same ratio to the value created by a unskilled laborer in a hour of time as the ratio of their respective wages. Their rates of exploitation can vary.
Why can this dialectic not apply to fixed capital, also known as machinery? According to Keen, Marx did momentarily so apply it in the Grundrisse. The use value of a drill, for example, is so many holes drilled over the life of the drill. But, at a more abstract level, the use value of the drill is a value-creating power. Just as the concrete labor performed by a particular kind of skilled laborer is, strictly speaking, incommeasurable with a particular expenditure of unskilled labor, so the concrete application of a drill is also incommeasurable. But, if you think of the one as having value-creating power, in units of abstract labor time, why cannot the other have value-creating power? If so, fixed capital is just as much a source of surplus value as labor power.
The point of this post, though, is to record a footnote for my commonplace book:
"Rosdolsky['s] contribution certainly called into question the traditional interpretation of Marx, but as for actual revisions of Marx's theory on the basis of Rosdolsky's work, little of merit has happened. Marxian theory in general has been in turmoil since the publication, at much the same time as The Making of Marx's Capital was translated into English, of Steedman's Marx after Sraffa (NLB, London, 1977). In fact Sraffian criticism of Marx predates Steedman's book - as Meek's second edition clearly illustrates. However Steedman's work was the most accessible of these critiques, and the most strident. Steedman's demonstration of the implications for the labour theory of value of Sraffian analysis has left Marxism in disarray, with many deserting the fold. Meek's introduction and appendix to his second edition of Studies , and his Smith, Marx and After (Chapman and Hall, London, 1977) imply that he was amongst the many inclined to this position. Those that remain are split into two camps, with one calling for the theory of value to be dropped from Marxism altogether (l.c. Carling, Hodgson, Bose) while the other argues that value, somehow, is fundamental. This second camp is itself heavily divided, with some for business as usual along the lines of the traditional interpretation (l.c. Sweezy and Shaikh), others explaining surplus on the basis of unequal exchange (l.c. Desai, Bowles and Gintis), and still others seeking refuge in Marx's discussion of concrete versus abstract labour (l.c. Mohun, Carling, Sekine) or the non-commodity nature of labour (Bowles and Gintis, Mohun, Laibman)." -- Steve Keen (1990).
I should expand the list of references below to contain more than one.
I tend to not like dialectical arguments, and I try to confine my analysis to to the level of prices of production. I need to look at labor values, in some sense, in calculating the labor expended in a stationary state to produce a given net output. I do this, following, say, Samuelson, in noting a switch point exhibits capital-reversing. I can see why some find the level of prices of production too confining. Marx goes further in volume 1. For example, consider his presentation of primitive accumulation and the 'double freedom' of the worker under capitalism. Or his distinction between absolute and relative surplus value. Maybe a good analysis should treat labor values anyways.
In contrast to Steedman, Sraffa did not see his book as refuting Marx. After the publication of his book, he wrote a letter to John Eaton (pseudonym of Stephen Bodington) responding to Eaton's review (Perri 2023). In it, he started with the value rate of profits in each industry. The value rate of profits is the ratio of surplus value to the sum of the value of variable capital and constant capital, with each found in the system of labor values. The rate of profits in the system of price of production is the weighted sum of the value rates of profits, where the weights are a modification of the weights for Sraffa's standard system. This weighted sum is one way that Sraffa draws a connection between labor values and prices of production.
References
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment