Skip to main content

Field and Substance in the Search for the Origins of Value in Economics


March Against Marx - Part 1

David Ricardo gave us the labour theory of value we all know and hate. Marx actually deviated from it and took up some more complex thing of his own. What kind of thing is what we'll be getting at in future. For now let's just sum up the two possible ontological approaches to objective value. They are not epistemologically distinct because both are ideas that value is objected and gives rise to (and/or is measured using) prices.

We all know what prices are, right? Well, they're just exchange rates/ratios. On to the porn!



~~~ SUBSTANCE THEORY ~~~

Substance theory is thee ontological position that substances are separate from their components. For enquiry into economics this means that labour-induced value resides in things. This literal interpretation underlies the labour theory of value as posited by Ricardo. [1]



~~~ FIELD THEORY ~~~

Field theories of value hold that value is not a literal quantity out there in the world but that its presence can be inferred from prior axioms or by empirical observation of economic agents' behaviour. This is the category where Marxian economics belongs. [2]

~~~

Any objective value theory opens up the possibility of building a theory of economics that basically consists of a kind of metaphysical accountancy as we shall see soon enough. What I mean by metaphysical is that it's all based on epistemological and ontological claims that can't be verified at source and are taken on faith. What I mean by accountancy is... well, Marx actually thinks economics has units, an amazing innovation on his part and something that was actually ingenious. His unit is socially necessary labour time.

It was also utterly ridiculous. But more on that later.

~~~

The embarrassing mistake made by modern critics of Marx is that we so often attack a substance value theory of labour, which is not what Marx advocated, thus building a straw man that Marxians can gaily ignore.

Time to up one's game. A serious enquiry into the value form and socially necessary labour time will be needed, but care must be taken lest the pupil of economics start talking about ideas like surplus value, dialectical materialism, or abstract labour that Marx himself never mentioned.



[1] Substance Theory article on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

[2] Field Theory article on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_theory_(sociology)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Iain McKay, Bryan Caplan & the Case of the "Anarchist" Anarchist

In the past I have written blog posts disputing claims contained in the online document called An Anarchist FAQ principally written by Iain McKay. I spent those posts trying to contend with Iain's claims re  the ancap question  and  the mode of production called capitalism . McKay has a bee in his bonnet re anarcho-capitalists' insistence on referring to themselves as anarchists, that much is obvious. Every reference to ancapism runs something along the lines of "an"cap or "anarcho"-capitalism. I find this very amusing because 'anarchist' or 'anarchism' are words (articulate mouth-sounds) first and specific concepts second.  Ditto 'socialist' and 'socialism' friends. Speaking of socialism... In  the comment section of one of his videos  the Youtuber called StatelessLiberty responded to a criticism by linking to Caplan's work  on the Anarchist adventure in Spain in the 1930's . The critic shot back with a  critic
1 comment
Read more

The 'neoliberal optimism industry' industry

A podcast, Citations Needed , forgot that poverty, violence, hunger and infant mortality are declining and decided that all of the media folk saying positive things about the major trend of our time (modern economic growth) are all wrong. The neoliberal optimism industry is hard at work pushing a cherry-picked slab of bias in our faces and we fellow optimists are all being bamboozled. Of course this is completely wrong, per abundant scholarship and evidence, some even tweeted by Pinker himself on November 24th 2018, four days before this podcast was released. At 05:00 into the podcast they seem to suggest that liberal capitalism = alt-right and fascism! You might wonder why I bother mentioning this since they say they don't take the fish hook theory very seriously themselves. It's because they insist on reading things Pinker isn't saying into Pinker's public statements, so I will work from the assumption that I am supposed to read things these podcasters aren'
Post a Comment
Read more

Doomer Eternal?

Youtuber Sarah Z talks about the Doomers, those who despair of the world. I am not trying to criticize Sarah Z's take since it is remarkably similar to mine, but I will dump my thoughts below anyway. [ 1 ] ~ ~ ~ The media has broadcast nothing but wall-to-wall doom-and-gloom for a-hundred years and then some. If things feel more hopeless now it's because so much of that media is social media generated by us, so that we are sharing the doom-and-gloom meme with each other AS WELL AS getting it from the mainstream media. Human life is in less peril than ever before (barring the possibility of WW3 between China & Russia v. NATO & SEATO) as economic development makes comfortable civilized living more and more accessible to more and more people every year, and the carbon intensity of every unit of GDP is continually declining. CO2 emissions could plausibly lead to specific calamities with identifiable bodycounts in the near future, and preventing CO2 emissions by the one plau
Post a Comment
Read more