Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:19:18 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
===================== HES POSTING ====================
I am not sure that much more of value can come out of a discussion at
this level of generality, but ...
Claudio wrote
> I don't think Michael missed my point. Rather, he gave the expected
> response from somebody who believes that Marxism as a whole is a viable
> theoretical approach to understand economic and social dynamics.
I am not sure how Claudio knows that this is what I think - although
in fact I do..
> To this my
> response is that your arguments, though sometimes useful, do not take
> account of a fundamental aspect.
Which arguments? - the brief conversation on this list? Arguments
contained in my published work?
> Marx wanted to construct a scientific
> theory of society. For this he needed a rigorous theory of labor value, and
> a rigorous theory of wages.
Yes (with perhaps some caveat about whether we agree about what it is
to be 'scientific') - but not necessarily a post-Sraffian linear
production theory. I assume you are not conflating the rigour of a
theory with the precise quantitative determination of variables whose
real world referents are not so determined? Or with formal modelling
with no care for its interpretation?
> Very general observations on the standard of
> living, the abstract nature of labor, etc. etc., though interesting and
> maybe innovative, did not suffice.
I agree - a browse through recent Marxist literature on economics
will furnish many and diverse and rigorous theories on these matters,
some couched in formal models.
> To his purpose there must be a strict,
> rigorous and identifiable link between the quantity of embodied labor and
> relative prices.
What grounds do you have for saying that Marx, let alone modern
Marxists need any theory of relative prices, let alone one based on
embodied labour? The reason I ask is that it is a matter of on-going
controversy within the community of Marxist scholars.
> I don't think
Marxists today can escape all this and
> pretend that a coherent solution of Marx's difficulty doesn't have any
> implication for them.
>
Nor do I - although it is unclear to which of Marx's 'difficulties '
you are referring.
Dr Michael Williams
Department of Economics
School of Social Sciences
De Montfort University
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|