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

Zeitardation

A Youtuber called axe863 made a video in which he used scientific, mathematical and statistical common-sense to deliver the KO that the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement so richly deserved. If his approach seems weird and unconventional it's because he's not attacking from a tradition neoclassical or Keynesian perspective. Axe863's poison is complexity economics, something a good deal more dangerous to ideas like TVP and TZM. [ 2 ] Now to a couple of comment threads from below the video that I thought could od with being replicated just in case they get deleted at source! ~~~ AstralLuminary 1 year ago Why can't we generalize the consumption patterns of middle-income people in the western world, set our constraints equal to the amount of localized resources, and the rate of resource recovery, derive a population growth model that would be sustainable to said consumption patterns, and derive the necessary quantifiable amount of work required to expen...
Post a Comment
Read more

RIP Macroeconomics

This post has no intellectual rigour, but I'm posting it anyway, because neither does macroeconomics. Most economists love spending all day doing macro, preferring it to the prosaic small-scale world of microeconomics. This is where the brazen hypocrisy of many heterodox folks will make itself known, as they decry the fallacies of composition rife within neoclassical economics and then go away and commit the same daft mistakes themselves (sometimes quite well disguised) using aggregates of demand, supply, and labour time. Further friction for modern economists can be had when contending with the tripartite division of economics into land, labour, capital, and the action of classes (the 'class' praxis) of the owners of those three economic resources. So, to all of macroecon... you're drunk. Go home and rethink your life.* * Yes I know I just committed a fallacy of reification.
Post a Comment
Read more

Foreign Policy hates you...

In Foreign Policy a hardcore fluff piece * talks about young Americans falling out of love with capitalism. The closing paragraph is very artful but also insipid and inaccurate. Read it and weep! ~~~ * A fluff piece that does a very bad job of grappling with a subject that is actually important.
Post a Comment
Read more