On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 02:02 AM, Tom Walker wrote: > > but I would suggest that you don't parade your misunderstanding as a > SUPERIOR understanding.
First, nothing here is about whose "understanding" is superior. The questions refer to what are ambiguities, and conflicts, expressed by Marx in his critique of capital, the labor-time law of value, and increased rates of surplus value. So first we have to determine to such ambiguities exist. Well let's take the easiest case first and look at question 3: > > 3. How is it possible for the law of value to apply to the exchange of > commodities only in the "prehistory" of industrial capitalism, before > labor itself is forced to exist as a commodity whose value to the workers > exists only in its exchange-ability with the value of the means of > subsistence necessary for its reproduction? > > Tom's begins his answer with a denial of authenticity:" I am not going to defend Marx's presentation of his argument here because the volume was edited by Engels from Marx's incomplete drafts." This might have some relevance if recent investigation, particularly that of Fred Moseley, had not established that poor Fred Engels (poor in the sense of trying to decipher Marx's handwriting) was quite faithful to the original manuscripts, providing little, if any alteration of substance. But Tom decides to proceed anyway and explain the meaning of the "unreliable text." Look, if you don't trust the accuracy of the text, then stop right there. Don't try to explain its meaning. gTom persists and reaches this conclusion: > > But if you read the passage you quoted, Marx was NOT saying that the law > of value no longer applies as you put it. Curiously, you omit precisely > the part where Marx is saying the opposite of what you claim he is saying: > > > >> Whatever may be the ways in which the prices of different >> commodities are first established or fixed in relation to one another, the >> law of value governs their movement. > > > Cheers, > I never said Marx did not say that the law of value governs. Indeed he does say that, I said Marx also says the exchange of commodities at their value corresponds to a "much lower stage of development than the exchange at the prices of production." Marx goes on to provide examples of this "lower stage" -- including guild and handicraft production and slavery and serfdom-- all of which demonstrate that the law of value governs the movement of prices. Slavery, serfdom, guild and handicraft production are all decidedly non-capitalist modes of production where labor power is not expressed, does not exist as a commodity the value of which is determined by the cost of its reproduction. So how does the law of value-- that commodities exchange in proportion to the socially necessary labor contained--function in determining price if the socially necessary price of the source of value itself is not established by labor being exchanged for wages, as wage labor? Now I think that's a difficulty that Marx does not resolve. Item 2: Marx says in Ch 8 of Vol 3: > > In the present chapter we assume that the intensity of labor exploitation, > and therefore the rate of surplus-value and the length of the working-day, > are the same in all the spheres of production into which the social labor > of a given country is divided > > So Marx has established here that the intensity of labor exploitation is 1)assumed to be uniform 2) seems to determine or be determined by the rate of surplus-value and the length of the working day, and that 3) changes in the intensity of exploitation either reflect or are reflected in changes in the rate of surplus value and/or the length of the working day. First, what is the "intensity of labor"? How is it measured? Does a laborer using a pick-axe to mine 1 ton of coal in 6 hours demonstrate an intensity of labor higher/lower/the same as a worker using an automatic boring machine to mine 10 tons of coal in 6 hours? Secondly, how does intensity get measured, transformed, and transferred into the value of the commodity. Thirdly, from the Poverty of Philosophy and on, Marx consistently maintains that time, labor-time is that standard, the measure of all things. "Time is everything, man is nothing. He is at most time's carcass." If intensity changes value as a factor independent of the socially necessary labor time of reproduction, how can the labor-time law of value be dominant? Enough for now-- item 1 requires a lot mre. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#35058): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/35058 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/111037083/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
