tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post2378459953995098373..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Vocabulary For MarxismRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-58456871701095796392012-10-12T14:21:39.120-04:002012-10-12T14:21:39.120-04:00R says about A's question to Pilkington:
&quo...R says about A's question to Pilkington:<br /><br />"then let me ask you, because I am dying to know: would you characterize the experience of riding that trained pterodactyl as more "fun" or "scary"? (I know you don't have one, but why should that stop you from riding it?)"<br /><br />I have to hold my ribs in or they will fall out from laughing so hard at this brilliantly funny image...Ramnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-66996452096158496172012-07-18T06:05:08.318-04:002012-07-18T06:05:08.318-04:00@Pedro
I take it you mean:
"It's very e...@Pedro<br /><br />I take it you mean:<br /><br />"It's very easy to MISunderstand mainstream models if you are not working under this paradigm as well".<br /><br /><br />If so, I think you are right.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-35734498072348147152012-07-16T21:01:23.084-04:002012-07-16T21:01:23.084-04:00It's very easy to understand mainstream models...It's very easy to understand mainstream models if you are not working under this paradigm as well..<br /><br />PedroAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-6146277109531969002012-07-16T14:57:26.340-04:002012-07-16T14:57:26.340-04:00@Will,
Ricardo's quote, your previous comment...@Will,<br /><br />Ricardo's quote, your previous comment (July 11, 2012 3:56 AM) and A's comments are all pertinent and relevant.<br /><br />And, from where I am standing, taken together they answer the challenge. Incidentally, although "generally incoherent and wooly" (!), this is basically what Baran and Sweezy said.<br /><br />The detail you are missing is that this is a very peculiar discussion.<br /><br />Note my previous comment: after one day of unpleasant, unproductive and lengthy discussion, full of patronizing, gratuitous, unsupported assertions (many of them, simply utterly mistaken, as Pilkington's "neoclassical demand and Marx" remark), Pilkington arrived at the very same statement he dismissed when A advanced it! The same!<br /><br />Ask yourself this: why did this happen? Now, think of the subject of Viennau's post. It goes a long way into explaining this (although, in honesty, I feel there is more at play here, but that's only a guess).<br /><br />More importantly: if people has already shown this stubborn negative to understand and acknowledge errors, what use is it to discuss rationally anything with them?<br /><br />Of course, you are free to feel differently. In any case, I wish you good luck. As Han Solo said: "You're gonna need it".Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-45654862710352847912012-07-16T04:18:57.188-04:002012-07-16T04:18:57.188-04:00I've said my bit, but here's Ricardo himse...I've said my bit, but here's Ricardo himself:<br /><br />"There are some commodities, the value of which is determined by their scarcity alone. No labour can increase the quantity of such goods, and therefore their value cannot be lowered by an increased supply. Some rare statues and pictures, scarce books and coins, wines of a peculiar quality, which can be made only from grapes grown on a particular soil, of which there is a very limited quantity, are all of this description. Their value is wholly independent of the quantity of labour originally necessary to produce them, and varies with the varying wealth and inclinations of those who are desirous to possess them.<br />1.6<br /><br />These commodities, however, form a very small part of the mass of commodities daily exchanged in the market. By far the greatest part of those goods which are the objects of desire, are procured by labour; and they may be multiplied, not in one country alone, but in many, almost without any assignable limit, if we are disposed to bestow the labour necessary to obtain them."<br /><br />Focusing on values that are scarce is evidently There are some commodities, the value of which is determined by their scarcity alone. No labour can increase the quantity of such goods, and therefore their value cannot be lowered by an increased supply. Some rare statues and pictures, scarce books and coins, wines of a peculiar quality, which can be made only from grapes grown on a particular soil, of which there is a very limited quantity, are all of this description. Their value is wholly independent of the quantity of labour originally necessary to produce them, and varies with the varying wealth and inclinations of those who are desirous to possess them.<br />1.6<br /><br />These commodities, however, form a very small part of the mass of commodities daily exchanged in the market. By far the greatest part of those goods which are the objects of desire, are procured by labour; and they may be multiplied, not in one country alone, but in many, almost without any assignable limit, if we are disposed to bestow the labour necessary to obtain them."<br /><br />Focusing on values than are obtained by scarcity is evidently not applicable under this mode of analysis. The attempt to do so does not disprove the Law of Value.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-52907189707171246492012-07-14T22:53:52.268-04:002012-07-14T22:53:52.268-04:00Grass
To clarify a few points:
To Marx, value in ...Grass<br /><br />To clarify a few points:<br />To Marx, value in use is an objective quality (it belongs to the object) and is incomparable between commodity and commodity (how could you compare the chemistry properties of gold to the ones of copper?)<br />However, value in exchange is a different issue, as a commodity carries a metaphysical condition against another (one expresses its value on another) and therefore, something in common to both commodities must be compared/exchanged. This is labour, common in every commodity.<br />However, value in exchange is not a relation between objects (qualities) but a social relation between two persons. Therefore, value in exchange only reflects SNALT in a society with twice free workers (free from slavery and free from the means of production) in isolated and deprived jobs between themselves (which means that each worker needs to sell his labour force in order to have income as the capitalists own the means of production).<br /><br />All that said, I think that nothing above has anything to do with the advertising/Jordan discussion. To me Philip Pilkington is wrong on the outside, but his insights carry some problematic criticism in LVT.<br />First, SNALT si not the "current relative price" of commodities, but (should be) the long period position of relative prices (normal prices of production, natural prices), and the current relative prices gravitate constantly towards this relations of labour value.<br />Now, which are the mechanisms (shocks) that put prices above or below these values and which mechanisms make prices come back to values? Well, in some cases, demand is the shock: if more commodities are demanded than the ones that were produced in that year, prices will go up. Other factors could be problems in the harvest and so on. But these shocks in the long run are meaningless. Why? Because of competition. If prices go up, profit rates go up also (effective profit rates higher than normal, or an overrealisation of profits) and then the capitalists that produce that commodity will tend to produce more. Also, other capitalists from other branches of production will change to that commodity to have some of those profits. Competition then will lower relative prices towards the normal prices of production.<br />What happens in an advertising world? We live in an imperfect competition world, with monopolistic competition. That Jordan sneaker is not a normal sneaker, because no-one else can produce it, as Jordan must have signed an exclusive contract with the firm. Then, other firms cannot produce this Jordan sneaker to compete with that firm. It's true, in this case relative prices (even in the long run) are different from values, but this happens because the competition mechanism don't apply.<br />Now this is serious. You create a theory of value that only applies in the "perfect competition case", which is a very restrictive (and neoclassic) case.<br />Also, you should notice, (and Vienneau may know this better than I do) that in Marx's resolution of the system (dividing all profits equally between different branches of capital, so as to solve the ricardian problem of techniqque choice), Marx's solution cannot equalize labour quantities with normal prices of production. But this is just a math problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-5691746308630958822012-07-14T22:50:52.404-04:002012-07-14T22:50:52.404-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Genaro Grassohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00208520798867606189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-71043938246221035182012-07-14T05:37:43.462-04:002012-07-14T05:37:43.462-04:00Hello, Marx tried to develop an economic theory fo...Hello, Marx tried to develop an economic theory for the proletariat, because such a theory would be supported by the majority. Some parts (for instance the class consciousness) are in fact sociology or philosophy, and subjective by nature. But the Marxian theory is definitely versatile for the description of dynamic economic systems with technological progress. Although Marx wanted to improve the economic science, he probably did not intend to develop a new vocabulary. On the other hand, the bolshevist rulers wanted to use science for purely ideological reasons. They wanted to thwart the communication between the two power blocks. For them, the introduction of alternative expressions was a means to distinguish themselves. Unfortunately Marx is often held accountable for the fantasies of Uljanov and his successors.Emil Bakkumhttp://hgdewolff.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-39811400159444838232012-07-13T04:23:28.383-04:002012-07-13T04:23:28.383-04:00July 10, 2012 5:49 PM
A said...
"Those two...July 10, 2012 5:49 PM <br /><br />A said...<br /><br />"Those two shoes in your example are actually distinct use-values; both cover the feet just as well, but one may signal social status or convey group inclusion while the other may well carry a stigma. In that case, these are really two distinct commodities, despite the similarities in the way they are produced".<br /><br />Blah blah blah blah<br /><br /><br />July 11, 2012 11:37 AM Philip Pilkington said...<br /><br />"Also, in purely supply/demand terms it is by no means clear that advertising is simply an artificial demand simulation technique. I would argue that it creates a new product. Think of it this way: if Apple create a new iPod are they just stimulating more demand for the old iPod or are they bringing a new product to market? The latter, of course."<br /><br />QED<br /><br />Now, by all means, carry on.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-15950060157555961562012-07-13T02:21:00.299-04:002012-07-13T02:21:00.299-04:00Given my slowness in commenting, I was first glad ...Given my slowness in commenting, I was first glad to see a long conversation without my involvement. I lean more against Philip's side. By the way, I like Philip's <a href="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/philip-pilkington-neoclassical-economics-and-the-foreclosing-of-dissent-the-inner-death-of-a-social-science.html" rel="nofollow">post</a> on the weirdness of academic economics of a couple of week's ago.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I actually wear Air Jordans - they are high-tops and easier to find than many other brands, and I am not tightly constrained in my budget. I have available an <a href="http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/sraffa.html" rel="nofollow">essay</a> and a <a href="http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LTV-FAQ.html" rel="nofollow">FAQ</a> on the Labor Theory of Value,dating from before I started my blog.<br /><br />I find that in the literature on Marx, scholars I respect, and who write clearly, can drastically disagree with their interpretations. Marx wrote such a lot that one can almost always find another apposite quote in many arguments. I like this one from the <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm" rel="nofollow"><i>Grundrisse</i></a>:<br /><br />"...the object is not an object in general, but a specific object which must be consumed in a specific manner, to be mediated in its turn by production itself. Hunger is hunger, but the hunger gratified by cooked meat eaten with a knife and fork is a different hunger from that which bolts down raw meat with the aid of hand, nail and tooth. Production thus produces not only the object but also the manner of consumption, not only objectively but also subjectively. Production thus creates the consumer. (3) Production not only supplies a material for the need, but it also supplies a need for the material. As soon as consumption emerges from its initial state of natural crudity and immediacy – and, if it remained at that stage, this would be because production itself had been arrested there – it becomes itself mediated as a drive by the object. The need which consumption feels for the object is created by the perception of it. The object of art – like every other product – creates a public which is sensitive to art and enjoys beauty. Production thus not only creates an object for the subject, but also a subject for the object. Thus production produces consumption (1) by creating the material for it; (2) by determining the manner of consumption; and (3) by creating the products, initially posited by it as objects, in the form of a need felt by the consumer. It thus produces the object of consumption, the manner of consumption and the motive of consumption. Consumption likewise produces the producer's <i>inclination</i> by beckoning to him as an aim-determining need."<br /><br />And further:<br /><br />"On the other side, production produces consumption by creating the specific manner of consumption; and, further, by creating the stimulus of consumption, the ability to consume, as a need. This last identity, as determined under (3), (is) frequently cited in economics in the relation of demand and supply, of objects and needs, of socially created and natural needs."Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-1930003293356646352012-07-12T09:30:30.685-04:002012-07-12T09:30:30.685-04:00(P.S. This has nothing to do with idealism in the ...<i>(P.S. This has nothing to do with idealism in the Platonic sense, but rather in the Hegelian sense insofar as how Man relates to objects and how these objects relate to him. That is, this has to do with subject-object dialectics. I'm surprised you are not familiar with this distinction. It's at the heart of all Marx's work.)</i><br /><br />I was drawing an analogy to help you understand my point about what "limits" were being referenced vis-a-vis a commodity's material form. Yes, I am familiar with the distinction you are referencing. Yes, I am growing impatient with your continued ad hominem focus; please stop trying to draw conclusions about me personally.<br /><br />Instead, keep your attention fixed on the things I am actually saying, so I won't have to keep repeating and rephrasing arguments in the hopes that you will represent them accurately.Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-81925880989324742692012-07-12T09:14:00.212-04:002012-07-12T09:14:00.212-04:00Absolutely not. It is completely unlimited. It'...<i>Absolutely not. It is completely unlimited. It's uses are based on the evolution of social and cultural norms. So, the tribesman might think that the gold is a mystical item that has immense value due to his mythic system. He will imbue it with symbolic value. Similarly, if P-Diddy starts wearing gold chains instead of silver ones, the metal might rise in exchange value for a particular group relative to all other commodities.</i><br /><br />You did not read what I said closely. A thing's uses can be unlimited, yes, but it is still limited in its very capacity to BE used by its material existence. That gold you own, you can invent a new use for it every day from now until you die, but if you no longer have it, you cannot continue to use it. This is elementary, and perhaps deceptively simple. You cannot spend your money twice and you cannot use things you don't have. If you will continue to deny this, then let me ask you, because I am dying to know: would you characterize the experience of riding that trained pterodactyl as more "fun" or "scary"? (I know you don't have one, but why should that stop you from riding it?)<br /><br />The "evolution of social and cultural norms" is, again, the realm of history and not political economy. The tribesman, P-Diddy, et al - it doesn't matter <i>why</i> they subjectively desire it. But the fact that they <i>do</i> desire it enough to pay for it tells you something basic: in order to get whatever use they think they can get out of that gold, they need to have that gold. <br /><br />Once more, with feeling: for the sake of the theory, it's not important WHAT use people recognize for a thing; only THAT people have recognized a use for it.<br /><br /><i>If what you are saying is true then 'value' as you understand it is a tautological term. Because 'value = SNLT' on the basis that you/Marx says it does and for no other reason. This means that Marxism is based on a tautological statement and cannot be distinguished from a metaphysical system.</i><br /><br />Hoo boy. It is a <i>definition</i> within this particular analytical system. You need definite terms to have theories. It's as simple as that. <br /><br />Perhaps this whole disagreement is just a problem of definitions, since you appear to be using 'value' in the modern sense of meaning 'subjective utility' (a tautology!!!) and I am using it in Marx's sense. If I were trying to cross my definitions, and suggest that the utility of a thing is based on the amount of abstract labor time embodied in it, and the reason for this is that value equals abstract labor time, then you'd be absolutely correct; I would have committed a fallacy.<br /><br />To spare future confusion, I will refrain from using the word "value" further. From this point on, when I am speaking of subjective valuation, I will say "utility"; when I am speaking of objective valuation I will say SNLT.<br /><br />And just like that, the "tautology" dissolves, since now you can plainly see that I am saying that prices revolve around SNLT, rather than the thoroughly adulterated v-word. So let's continue on these terms. What do you say?Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-46213197269304113192012-07-12T08:19:20.430-04:002012-07-12T08:19:20.430-04:00"Exchange value is a ratio at which a commodi..."Exchange value is a ratio at which a commodity will exchange for another commodity, most often used in the particular expression of "price." "Value," without use- or exchange-, is what defines the commodity form and is expressed in terms of SNLT."<br /><br />If what you are saying is true then 'value' as you understand it is a tautological term. Because 'value = SNLT' on the basis that you/Marx says it does and for no other reason. This means that Marxism is based on a tautological statement and cannot be distinguished from a metaphysical system.<br /><br />I.e. It is not a useful analytical system. It is simply a tautological system that makes unprovable assumptions.<br /><br />Personally, I think Marx was more consistent than that and I don't think he made such tautological statements. But on your reading he does.Philip Pilkingtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-9852789270347904632012-07-12T08:14:16.546-04:002012-07-12T08:14:16.546-04:00"So whether you derive your particular utilit..."So whether you derive your particular utility from gold from particle physics or from adorning yourself with things that will cause others to think more highly of you, it is still ultimately limited in its capacity to satisfy you by its material existence."<br /><br />Absolutely not. It is completely unlimited. It's uses are based on the evolution of social and cultural norms. So, the tribesman might think that the gold is a mystical item that has immense value due to his mythic system. He will imbue it with symbolic value. Similarly, if P-Diddy starts wearing gold chains instead of silver ones, the metal might rise in exchange value for a particular group relative to all other commodities.<br /><br />Once you admit that value is subjective -- as you have -- that's the end of Marx's theory of the commodity. Because symbolic and subjective value are completely infinite in their capacity, subject to constant changes as culture and discourse evolve. People who are in symbolic positions (Mike Jordan) can manipulate the values by influencing opinions in an infinite number of ways. The value of the commodity is thus completely separate from both its material existence and its processes of production.<br /><br />(P.S. This has nothing to do with idealism in the Platonic sense, but rather in the Hegelian sense insofar as how Man relates to objects and how these objects relate to him. That is, this has to do with subject-object dialectics. I'm surprised you are not familiar with this distinction. It's at the heart of all Marx's work.)<br /><br />* Will respond to other stuff later. Very busy.Philip Pilkingtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-45499116363526733292012-07-11T21:36:19.964-04:002012-07-11T21:36:19.964-04:00The classical school conceives of many circumstanc...The classical school conceives of many circumstances in which price deviates from value (as A says). Price can deviate from value because of:<br /><br />-a change in popular taste (demand)<br />-a crop failure or other unplanned shortage (supply)<br />-monopoly<br />-differential productivities of different natural locations<br />-"moral" depreciation of capital stock in use<br />-different degrees of capital intensity between industries (which cause <i>systematic</i> deviations)<br /><br />I'm not sure this list is exhaustive. <br /><br />In short, in the classical system, values and prices deviate habitually and unremarkably. It might be less confusing if we used Adam Smith's less-loaded terms, "market price" and "natural price," instead. Holding up two commodities and pointing out that you have an instance of price deviating from value is not really a fatal blow.<br /><br />And my understanding is that the classical argument, prior to Marx, does not necessarily have anything to do with materialism. The motivation is an objective accounting tool, that one can use both to predict prices and to distinguish changes in the value of goods from changes in the price level.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-7403140537706267092012-07-11T20:36:23.753-04:002012-07-11T20:36:23.753-04:00"But I never suggested utility has an existen...<i>"But I never suggested utility has an existence apart from the commodity. Quite the contrary."<br /><br />"So the chemical existence of the thing is not enough to imply any particular "normal" use for it; gold can be a use-value because it's heavy, because it can be flattened to atomic thinness for alpha particle experiments, or because other people find it pretty."<br /><br />These statements appear to me in contradiction. <br /><br />On the one hand you say that utility has no existence apart from the commodity. But then you say that utility may exist because someone "finds it pretty".</i><br /><br />Okay, let me try a different approach to illustrate why they are not contradictory. Here is a yellow flower (please bear with me, I am totally holding one up). This flower possesses the property of appearing yellow, and therefore we can say it IS yellow. By saying this, I am not AT ALL suggesting that there is a Platonic Idea of Yellowness that has independent existence as a universal. Candy can be yellow, a star can be yellow, etc, but there is no such thing as Yellowness that we can point to in the universe. We would at best be pointing out things that are but expressing this quality.<br /><br />Similarly, while the utility of a commodity can be expressed in a number of ways, that utility still remains intrinsically tied to, and expressed as a quality of, the commodity in question. If the commodity vanishes from existence, so too does its utility. So whether you derive your particular utility from gold from particle physics or from adorning yourself with things that will cause others to think more highly of you, it is still ultimately limited in its capacity to satisfy you by its material existence. That utility can't be separated from it, like a soul ripped from a muppet in The Dark Crystal or whatever.<br /><br />See what I'm saying? This does not at all violate the materialist underpinnings of the theory, but is in fact based entirely upon it. Like I said, it can also be read as a nominalist position.<br /><br /><i>The utility exists within my mind and within your mind and not in some 'external', 'material' world.</i><br /><br />The satisfaction exists within our minds, sure, but the actual uses are material; we just <i>recognize</i> them. However we choose to use them, the only thing that matters to the study of political economy is that we can, and that we are thus willing to trade money for it. As Marx said early on in Capital, "to discover the various uses of things is the work of history."<br /><br /><i>I don't think what you're saying addresses the point. The fact is that exchange value has been added permanently to a product with extra SNLT. Okay, knock-offs will be produced, but these will have a lower exchange value. And maybe other firms will match advertisements, but that doesn't matter.</i><br /><br />Again, I think the problem is that you are viewing "exchange value" as the same thing as "value." They are actually two different things, though as I said, they are assumed numerically equivalent in Vol. 1. Exchange value is a ratio at which a commodity will exchange for another commodity, most often used in the particular expression of "price." "Value," without use- or exchange-, is what defines the commodity form and is expressed in terms of SNLT. Exchange value is an expression of value, but not exclusively so. <br /><br />If something is selling at its value, you can treat value and exchange value as interchangeable because the latter is exchanging for money, which is the form of value and thus an expression of labor time.<br /><br />The increase in exchange value can be explained by demand and by monopoly rents. Value (SNLT) is unchanged. The shoes sell above their value. Profit is high. See? It's all extremely reasonable. It's just a pain to wade through all the misapprehensions.Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-46927953927473806982012-07-11T20:31:44.135-04:002012-07-11T20:31:44.135-04:00@Phil: thanks for your patience. Without further ...@Phil: thanks for your patience. Without further ado, the missing part 2 and more:<br /><br /><i>Now, you're talking about demand (which is NOT a Marxist term, it is neoclassical and you shouldn't mix the two as it shows a bad understanding of Marx). But this is irrelevant. Supply and demand mean nothing in his system. Market values are set by exchange values which are set by SNLT. Nothing more. Nothing less.</i><br /><br />This is incorrect, and almost aggressively so. If you're going to impugn my understanding of the subject matter, it is best not to include an error in the same sentence. Yes, supply and demand are not strictly Marxian terms as such; they were in fact used by the very classicals he studied. He <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm" rel="nofollow">understood the concepts well</a> and utilized them. However, they don't tell the whole story; labor values come into play because once supply "covers" demand, it no longer tells us anything about relative exchange values. This is because prices are not simply scarcity indices. If they were, the <a href="http://nakedkeynesianism.blogspot.com/2012/03/capital-debates-brief-introduction.html" rel="nofollow">cambridge capital controversy</a> would have been a lot less damning. I would once again urge a look at the <a href="http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/supply-and-demand-script-for-a-video-that-may-never-be-made/" rel="nofollow">Cooney post</a> I mentioned earlier that quite simply describes the interplay of supply, demand, and SNLT. It seems like it'd be worth your time to take a look if you plan to continue throwing around sweeping and egregiously incorrect assertions like "supply and demand mean nothing in his system."<br /><br /><i>Also, in purely supply/demand terms it is by no means clear that advertising is simply an artificial demand simulation technique. I would argue that it creates a new product. Think of it this way: if Apple create a new iPod are they just stimulating more demand for the old iPod or are they bringing a new product to market? The latter, of course. And the same is being done (as you admitted) when the tick is stitched on the side and Jordan sports a pair. In fact, in saying that you admitted that advertising is not demand side at all. But again, these analytical terms are irrelevant to Marx. </i><br /><br />I suspect we may mean two different things by "advertising." I mean things like television commercials, internet and magazine ads, billboards, etc. I am not even sure how creating a new iPod could be construed as an advertisement for the old iPod; rather, at the risk of being tautological, it is the <i>advertisements</i> for the iPod that constitute advertising.<br /><br />Whether the two sneakers are different use-values is aside from the question of whether or not it would be advertising if MJ rocked them around town (it almost certainly would be, incidentally). In that case, it is entirely likely that people would see the ad and perhaps more people would relate to the product and therefore want to buy it. Thus, demand rises. This can cause price to rise. This is fully compatible with the LTV.Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-38448383681037122412012-07-11T20:27:28.135-04:002012-07-11T20:27:28.135-04:00Phil,
"I'm not going to respond to you i...Phil,<br /><br />"I'm not going to respond to you in any detail if you take such a vindictive tone."<br /><br />Okay, so that I don't sound "vindictive": pretty please, with sugar on top, quotations about the "post-structuralist and neo-structuralist critiques which won the debate in the philosophy departments", because indeed I am not aware of their alleged existence (see, it's not that hard to acknowledge a fault).<br /><br />Or, even better, explain them in your own words: grab your scissors and shear the wool away. Deliver the killer KO!<br /><br />I'll add some flowers and rainbow drawings, but I don't know how, so a face will have to do: :-)Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-3132671406573423192012-07-11T15:12:18.552-04:002012-07-11T15:12:18.552-04:00@Phil:
It appears my entire second comment (the s...@Phil:<br /><br />It appears my entire second comment (the second half of my reply) never appeared. I'll compose it again when I get home in a few hours, along with a response to your newer one.Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-49640633771172540802012-07-11T14:46:56.209-04:002012-07-11T14:46:56.209-04:00@ Magpie
I'm not going to respond to you in a...@ Magpie<br /><br />I'm not going to respond to you in any detail if you take such a vindictive tone. But I will say that the work you reference is generally incoherent and wooly on the points that I raise. I'm aware of the 60s Marxist work. I'm also aware, which you're apparently not, of the post-structuralist and neo-structuralist critiques which won the debate in the philosophy departments.<br /><br />===============<br /><br />@ Will<br /><br />I don't think what you're saying addresses the point. The fact is that exchange value has been added permanently to a product with extra SNLT. Okay, knock-offs will be produced, but these will have a lower exchange value. And maybe other firms will match advertisements, but that doesn't matter.<br /><br />If Mike Jordan wears the Nikes and Adidas hires David Beckham to wear their shoes, then the Nikes and the Adidas might be roughly at par exchange value. HOWEVER, relative to all other commodities -- which is the real measure -- BOTH the Nikes and the Adidas will have a higher exchange value.<br /><br />You see we're talking about actual value being added here. It's the same as if Puma then made much higher quality shoes through higher labour inputs AND advertised and these had a higher exchange value than the Nikes and the Adidas. You simply cannot get around the fact that exchange value is being added by the advertising and this additional value does not arise from SNLT.Philip Pilkingtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-73563012963825712142012-07-11T14:34:11.922-04:002012-07-11T14:34:11.922-04:00Perhaps we're being overcomplicated.
In the c...Perhaps we're being overcomplicated.<br /><br />In the classical schema, value is strictly a long-term phenomenon. Prices are assumed to deviate from values almost all the time, but still to gravitate around them. Use value and exchange value are seen as a dichotomy at the moment of purchase, but over time the one must influence the other. If the excess return on the tick shoe does not reflect monopolization of some exclusive resource, then lower-cost knock-offs or counterfeits will appear, bringing the price down. If advertising represents an addition that can be added "basically at will," then the classical theory predicts that competitors will employ similar advertising until the value of that, too, is reduced to cost of production. <br /><br />I'd note again that this assumes a freedom of competition that no classical author thought actually existed. The same authors clearly were aware of guilds, legal monopolies, tariffs, etc., but bracketed them out (as Ricardo for instance brackets out rent once he has isolated it). Marx in particular seems to have intended to allow capitalism the best assumptions that its apologists asked for.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-69716661118572476102012-07-11T14:28:55.643-04:002012-07-11T14:28:55.643-04:00Phil,
No, you are not making a broader point here...Phil,<br /><br />No, you are not making a broader point here. You are creating a distraction, to try and cover your mistake.<br /><br />It works like this: one is caught red-handed saying something silly. A simple solution is to say: "Geez, sorry. I didn't know that". And that's it. People do make mistakes, after all and this is a mistake lots of people make, as Robert's post suggests. So, you are not alone.<br /><br />But that solution, for some reason that only you know, is unthinkable to you. What's the away around? Let's point somewhere else, insisting "I am making a broader point".<br /><br />----------<br /><br />For the record: your very insistence on this advertising red herring is another case where a little previous research would have saved you a hard time, for yours is not a red-hot discovery. This has been the subject of discussion among Marxists since at least the 1960s.<br /><br />Referring to the "broader" subject of marketing, this EXPOSITION paper (which you could had have easily found by the simple expedient of making a Google search) contains this paragraph, which is short and understandable enough:<br /><br />"Our goal in what follows is to provide a broad introductory sketch of the sales effort under monopoly capital (and more specifically the monopoly-finance capital of today) based on what we believe to be the most comprehensive foundational work on contemporary advertising: Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy's Monopoly Capital. It built upon the pioneering economic scholarship on this subject in the middle third of the twentieth century." [1]<br /><br />This other paragraph, from another paper (which you can also find using Google), in a short couple of lines, gives the basic idea:<br /><br />"This analysis was accomplished first by Veblen, and then-in a synthesis of Marx and Veblen-in Baran and Sweezy's Monopoly Capital in 1966." [2]<br /><br />Now, Captain Ahab, you are free to go on your obsessive crusade against the Red Whale, that's fine with me. But beware, that whale has been defeating other intrepid hunters since it was born, in the 19th century.<br /><br />[1] Hannah Holleman, Inger L. Stole, John Bellamy Foster, and Robert W. McChesney (2009). "The Sales Effort and Monopoly Capital". Monthly Review, Volume 60, Issue 11 (April).<br /><br />[2] John Bellamy Foster (2011). "The Ecology of Marxian Political Economy". Monthly Review Volume 63, Issue 04 (September).<br /><br />And, I'll say as I did before, this conversation is getting us nowhere. So, that's it for me.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-3834023055741183952012-07-11T14:02:17.227-04:002012-07-11T14:02:17.227-04:00"But I never suggested utility has an existen..."But I never suggested utility has an existence apart from the commodity. Quite the contrary."<br /><br />"So the chemical existence of the thing is not enough to imply any particular "normal" use for it; gold can be a use-value because it's heavy, because it can be flattened to atomic thinness for alpha particle experiments, or because other people find it pretty."<br /><br />These statements appear to me in contradiction.<br /><br />On the one hand you say that utility has no existence apart from the commodity. But then you say that utility may exist because someone "finds it pretty".<br /><br />This is a contradiction on my reading -- which is a Marxist reading, by the way. If I can imbue an object with different utility than you because I find it pretty and you find it ugly, then the utility DOES exist apart from the object. The utility exists within my mind and within your mind and not in some 'external', 'material' world.<br /><br />In Marxist/Hegelian terms, if utility exists independent of the subject (i.e. you, me) we can consider it a property of the object (i.e. the commodity) -- which is what Marx is aiming for. However, if utility exists on the side of the subject we cannot assume that this utility exists in the material object.<br /><br />This is contrary to Marx's entire philosophical project and at odds with his economic analysis.<br /><br />================<br /><br />"SNLT is, if anything, more like a center of gravity around which prices are in constant flux due to forces such as supply and demand, changes to production and the relation between capital and labor, and a great many others."<br /><br />Yes, that's right. Supply/demand are irrelevant to Marx because he is looking for the "underlying laws of economic motion". All supply/demand fluctuations are just transitory effects that will settle around the exchange value of the object which depends on its SNLT.<br /><br />Here's the problem: The Jordan runners aren't imbued with a temporary increase in demand. The commodity itself is completely changed. It becomes something new that people are more willing to exchange more other products for.<br /><br />It is not that more people demand it (although they may) and that there is a limited supply (there probably isn't). But that those who do demand the runners value them higher than other runners even though the underlying SNLT is the same. The product has changed -- not the people. A new factor has gone into production that has increased the value of the product without needing (a) more expensive inputs or (b) more labour time.Philip Pilkingtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-85478306629279426712012-07-11T13:23:38.469-04:002012-07-11T13:23:38.469-04:00Read that last sentence carefully. Very carefully....<i>Read that last sentence carefully. Very carefully. The use value is "LIMITED BY THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES" and "HAS NO EXISTENCE APART FROM THE COMMODITY".</i><br /><br />But I never suggested utility has an existence apart from the commodity. Quite the contrary.<br /><br />I think my very careful reading is working out differently than yours, though; from your takeaway, it's almost as though you are interpreting "limited by" to mean "limited to." But you quoted earlier where he notes that the same use-value can be used in various ways. So the chemical existence of the thing is not enough to imply any particular "normal" use for it; gold can be a use-value because it's heavy, because it can be flattened to atomic thinness for alpha particle experiments, or because other people find it pretty. All of these are valid expressions of the utility embodied in it, and therefore gold's status as a use-value.<br /><br />I don't see why positing that something has social utility would imply some sort of metaphysical claim that the Idea of utility has independent existence. I guess that's where you keep losing me.<br /><br /><i>Now, advertising -- if it is all about status, which I believe is a crass oversimplification of how advertising works -- but if we say that it is, still advertising adds SOMETHING MORE to the commodity. This is enormously important because it means that exchange value can arise without adding "physical properties" to a commodity (through labour etc.).</i><br /><br />I apologize if I was unclear; this is not what I meant, but I will go into the specifics below. <br /><br /><i>"Value as labor time is not the same thing as exchange value, though (even though they are assumed the same in volume 1); that is why things can be said to exchange "above" or "below their values."<br /><br />This has already turned into a language game/hermeneutic reading and I'll soon lose interest (these sorts of exercises are theological in the worst sense of the word), but I will simply make the point that for Marx:<br /><br />1. market values are exchange values.<br /><br />2. exchange values are set by the amount of SNLT embodied.</i><br /><br />What? There is no equivocation, here. I don't see a language game, unless one of us is misreading the other. (I hope it is not me, but I am not closed to the possibility.)<br /><br />Marx uses this phrasing of "above/below value" constantly, and he is explicit in saying that the market price of things can, for all intents and purposes, <i>always</i> be assumed to be higher or lower than their value. This is not something I've dreamt up to make a semantic point; this is actually a crucial distinction that he makes throughout his work.<br /><br />SNLT is, if anything, more like a center of gravity around which prices are in constant flux due to forces such as supply and demand, changes to production and the relation between capital and labor, and a great many others. The point of the LTV is not to be a theory of price in and of itself (though it can make sense of prices in broader context), but rather to describe the laws of motion of a capitalist economy. To discard the deviation of price from value does away with the lion's share of said motion.Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-59649978491227772362012-07-11T11:50:35.823-04:002012-07-11T11:50:35.823-04:00"...you can perhaps point to something you..."...you can perhaps point to something you've written or read that details your perspective on this matter?"<br /><br />Sorry, on this: I don't write about Marx or Marxism. I rarely encounter them in contemporary discourse so I don't bother -- although, in many ways its more interesting than, for example, the Austrians. But there have been plenty of critiques of this worldview before from Marxian authors. Pierre Bourdieu is quite good if I recall. Maybe David Graeber's book on value -- which I have only scanned (and he maintains an LTV on 'moral grounds' which I find rather weak).Philip Pilkingtonnoreply@blogger.com