[Marxism] 'What to do with the Labor Theory of Value'
shmage at pipeline.com
Sun May 12 13:39:09 MDT 2013
On May 12, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Angelus Novus wrote:
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Shane Mage:
>> Instead of handwaving with thirty-dollar words
> Here's another thirty-dollar word for: incommensurability.
> When I actually reply to you, stating that there is *no*
> transformation problem from the perspective of a monetary theory of
> value, you demand that I argue with you on the terrain of classical
> political economy, from the perspective of a pre-monetary value
The empirical data presented by any real economy consists of price and
income data in monetary terms. If that data is *incommensurable* with
the result of any calculation in value terms than what is the use *in
practice* of value theory? Your "monetary theory of value" would end
up as nothing more than a verbose echo of what Joan Robinson wrote
long ago: "none of the important ideas that [Marx] expresses in terms
of the concept of *value* cannot be better expressed without it." The
*value* unit is "otiose." "It has no operational content. It is just
a word." (*Essay on Marxian Economics*, p. 20; *Economic Philosophy* p.
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
kindling in measures and going out in measures.
Herakleitos of Ephesos
More information about the Marxism