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

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...
Post a Comment
Read more

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...
Post a Comment
Read more

1318 - The Evil Capitalists Own Your Mom!

The New Scientist ran a piece  on the economic relationships between the 43,060 transnational corporations in the world as of 2007. It turns out that 147 of 'em are thick as thieves, which each of those 147 entirely owned by one or more of the others within that clique. Naturally some anti-capitalists have decided that this proliferation of tight interconnections constitutes the proof that not buying what someone's selling will fail to put that seller out of business. Takes all sorts to make a world, brah. Is concentration scary in itself? No; John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability. Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable . “If one [compan...
Post a Comment
Read more