"Capitalists infer from this that machines are a source of value. Marx argues that this cannot possibly be so" - David Harvey, 'Marx, Capital, and the Madness of Economic Reason', pg 109 "... given Marx's (and Ricardo's) insistence that labour is the ultimate source of value" - David Harvey, 'Marx, Capital, and the Madness of Economic Reason', pg 157 I just read Harvey's article disputed here and I can't for the life of me figure out how he is even disputing the labour theory of value yet alone how Marx refused it. Just seems he is just gong of on unrelated tangents.
Yeah, same. When he came out saying that "we shouldn't actually want a revolution." That should have been a dead giveaway. I used to think that Vijay Prashad had been a bit harsh in his criticism of Harvey, but clearly he was not. This is straight up revisionism.
Thank you for this video Mr. Cockshott, I'm so glad that there is a slowly growing socialist presence online, but with the political climate we've been seeing for years now, I fear a long dark night before real progress is made. As an unrelated question, how does a socialist economy reward labour that requires greater physical effort, mental stress, and more dangerous conditions?
Socialist economy typically in real life do it according to this formula quality(skill/difficulty i.e greater physical effort, mental stress, and more dangerous conditions) * quantity(time unit i.e hours) = wages
I've never understood how you can ensure that looking down a well in one town in one town and measuring a shadow in another happen at the same time. I guess they had synchronized clocks of some kind and weren't using sun dials.
So wouldn't the data seem to imply they're log-log linearly related to one another? I suppose this may not change the overall analysis very much but there's conventional economic theory about production that fits this quite well, namely cobb-douglas production, though I'm only a little bit familiar with all of this. I find it very interesting!
Anwar Shaikh shows that the Cobb Douglas relationship is a statistical artifact of the relative stability of class incomes. See link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057%2F978-1-349-95121-5_898-1
Another confussion I have with Harvey is how in "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" he bashes Deng on his China chapter, then appraises how their economy is recession proof.
As you mention the relation between concepts as key for differences betweeen theories, should not we consider the contradiction value-use value, presented in chapters 1 and 2 of Capital as an original contribution of Marx to Ricardo's theory of value? Great video, regards
No that is very old and dates back to Aristotle (global.oup.com/academic/product/aristotles-economic-thought-9780198152255?cc=gb&lang=en&) and was a key point of Adam Smith's work.
It might be (but I didn't read Harvey's text) that he was quibbling over semantics and meant that Marx named his theory the "theory of value", and not the "labour theory of value". This difference is made by French maoists I know, but it doesn't seem to be common place in the English speaking world, and I wouldn't see the point in doing it either.
Well, originally we used the words "Valeur-travail" (literally "Value-work/Value-labour"), the word "theory" didn't appear, so I guess it is seen not like a theory but as a concept in our country, due to specific translations, and although you can say that Marx based his theory on Ricardo's, he clearly didn't mean the same concept . So marxists chose to use different words . Moreover, this motto of "Valeur-travail" is one uphold by the right : basically that's an ideologic phrase against unemployed, who are said to not really search for work and to be fed on the back of the people really working under the new conditions "imposed" by the economic situation of our country (i.e. willing to be exploited more). At the end of the day "Valeur-travail" has been more and more associated with Ricardo or with right wing parties under its non scientific meaning, and some marxists choose to refer to the labour theory of value as the "marxist theory of value" ("Théorie marxiste de la valeur") . I am close to the French Maoist Communist Party, and they say it like that, but I don't know how widespread it is and the reasoning behind it is more cultural and linguistic than really conceptual.
My point is that there is on substantive difference between Marx theory of value and Ricardos. Go through Harvey's article and you will see that he can not cite a single real world relationship that is said to differ in the two theories.
"Capitalists infer from this that machines are a source of value. Marx argues that this cannot possibly be so" - David Harvey, 'Marx, Capital, and the Madness of Economic Reason', pg 109
"... given Marx's (and Ricardo's) insistence that labour is the ultimate source of value" - David Harvey, 'Marx, Capital, and the Madness of Economic Reason', pg 157
I just read Harvey's article disputed here and I can't for the life of me figure out how he is even disputing the labour theory of value yet alone how Marx refused it. Just seems he is just gong of on unrelated tangents.
He's old.
Maybe his brain is going?
whoah harvey really went downhill. To think he was one of the people who first got me into marxism
Yeah, same. When he came out saying that "we shouldn't actually want a revolution." That should have been a dead giveaway. I used to think that Vijay Prashad had been a bit harsh in his criticism of Harvey, but clearly he was not. This is straight up revisionism.
Thank you for this video Mr. Cockshott, I'm so glad that there is a slowly growing socialist presence online, but with the political climate we've been seeing for years now, I fear a long dark night before real progress is made. As an unrelated question, how does a socialist economy reward labour that requires greater physical effort, mental stress, and more dangerous conditions?
Socialist economy typically in real life do it according to this formula quality(skill/difficulty i.e greater physical effort, mental stress, and more dangerous conditions) * quantity(time unit i.e hours) = wages
By not sending you to the gulag if you willingly do it
@@BlingSco Because socialist economies actually use formulaes to work out wages, laughable.
In the USSR a heavily physical job such as dockworker was considered more prestigious than and more highly paid than managerial positions.
It would be excellent to see you make a video on exogenous vs endogenous money supply.
Excellent summary of the differences among the three great classical political economists! Even snuck in absolute rent.
Taking a example that is also used in my 1210 class. Funny to see that both in the same day.
Did Harvey recently contract brain worms!?
I must say it did surprise me to see him say this
Is the value theory also valid for the enterainment industry with its copyrightslaws?
Whats your thoughts on the Michael Roberts blog: David Harvey, Piketty and the central contradiction of capitalism?
That is too big a question, for a short answer, but it may be worth watching my video on the profit rate
Have you ever tried contacting Cuba or the DPRK in regards to helping them?
I've never understood how you can ensure that looking down a well in one town in one town and measuring a shadow in another happen at the same time. I guess they had synchronized clocks of some kind and weren't using sun dials.
Do it at noon. That is measurable by sun dials.
So wouldn't the data seem to imply they're log-log linearly related to one another? I suppose this may not change the overall analysis very much but there's conventional economic theory about production that fits this quite well, namely cobb-douglas production, though I'm only a little bit familiar with all of this. I find it very interesting!
Anwar Shaikh shows that the Cobb Douglas relationship is a statistical artifact of the relative stability of class incomes. See link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057%2F978-1-349-95121-5_898-1
Another confussion I have with Harvey is how in "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" he bashes Deng on his China chapter, then appraises how their economy is recession proof.
As you mention the relation between concepts as key for differences betweeen theories, should not we consider the contradiction value-use value, presented in chapters 1 and 2 of Capital as an original contribution of Marx to Ricardo's theory of value?
Great video, regards
No that is very old and dates back to Aristotle (global.oup.com/academic/product/aristotles-economic-thought-9780198152255?cc=gb&lang=en&) and was a key point of Adam Smith's work.
Great work!
In which texts do Marx talk about the Incas?
It is in Capital vol 1
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for watching!
It might be (but I didn't read Harvey's text) that he was quibbling over semantics and meant that Marx named his theory the "theory of value", and not the "labour theory of value". This difference is made by French maoists I know, but it doesn't seem to be common place in the English speaking world, and I wouldn't see the point in doing it either.
How do French maoists make the different? I'm curious (I know a bit of French, but would appreciate it if you could also explain it) Thanks!
Well, originally we used the words "Valeur-travail" (literally "Value-work/Value-labour"), the word "theory" didn't appear, so I guess it is seen not like a theory but as a concept in our country, due to specific translations, and although you can say that Marx based his theory on Ricardo's, he clearly didn't mean the same concept . So marxists chose to use different words . Moreover, this motto of "Valeur-travail" is one uphold by the right : basically that's an ideologic phrase against unemployed, who are said to not really search for work and to be fed on the back of the people really working under the new conditions "imposed" by the economic situation of our country (i.e. willing to be exploited more). At the end of the day "Valeur-travail" has been more and more associated with Ricardo or with right wing parties under its non scientific meaning, and some marxists choose to refer to the labour theory of value as the "marxist theory of value" ("Théorie marxiste de la valeur") . I am close to the French Maoist Communist Party, and they say it like that, but I don't know how widespread it is and the reasoning behind it is more cultural and linguistic than really conceptual.
My point is that there is on substantive difference between Marx theory of value and Ricardos. Go through Harvey's article and you will see that he can not cite a single real world relationship that is said to differ in the two theories.
Thank you for this.