С О Ц И Н Т Е Г Р У М

...

"по Марксу стоимость образовывалась даже у Робинзона Крузо"

ВЫВОД №1.
Если деньгами является реальный товар ("золото", например), то проблема трансформирования в общем случае решения НЕ ИМЕЕТ ...

ВЫВОД №2.
Если товарообмен осуществляется посредством фиктивных (бумажных) денег, то проблему трансформирования можно решить ... Для этого случая догадка Alex-а верна.

Пусть C растет быстрее, чем M+V (что имеет место при росте НТП), но тогда поскольку как известно конечный или чистый продукт как раз равен M+V мы и получаем отсюда самым тривиальным образом :

продукт подразделения I (средства производства) растет быстрее продукта подразделения II (предметы потребления).

Те ни от каких ваших темпов накопления в подразделениях и тд ничего не зависит.

Яков Васильевич писал(а):


Ничего подобного !

По Марксу при анализе функционирования натурального хозяйства Робинзона вводить понятие стоимости некорректно, поскольку это хозяйство принципиально нетоварное, те внутри него нет никакого товарного обмена.

Китайцы отсканировали книжку под редакцией Суизи, в которой в качестве приложения помещена еще одна статья Борткевича :

http://www.cadal.zju.edu.cn/book/31015774/Eng/

что-то не получается

Набирайте номер страницы (в маленьком окошке) вручную и нажимайте "GO".

Туган-Барановский М.И. Теоретические основы марксизма 2003

где рассматривается соответствующая модель Туган-Барановского

The great merit of Zombie Capitalism by Chris Harman is that it outlines the causes and consequences of the recurrence of crises while at the same time describing their challenges for labour. In general, scholarly books on this subject are not known for their readability or their wider appeal. But this book stands out as one of the few fortunate exceptions. It is very clearly written in as accessible a style as possible, given the inevitable complexity of much of its subject matter. For this reason, it is extremely useful not only for specialists, but also for laypersons who wish to understand how the economy got into its dire present problems after a long period that has been dubbed the ‘golden age’ of capitalism.
.......................................................

There are several features that recommend it, besides its accessibility. To begin with, Harman comes down squarely in favour of a temporalist approach (a term to be explained in a second). The choice of a temporalist versus a simultaneist approach would seem to be a quibble, a byzantine discussion among pundits diverting the attention from what would seem more fundamental issues. And yet, it is a matter of the utmost importance.

As well known, Marx computes the prices at which the commodities (produced with the average technique within each sector) are tendentially sold, or prices of production, by adding the average rate of profits to the value contained in the inputs (and thus to constant and variable capital advanced). The value of the outputs before the equalization of the profit rates is their individual value or value contained while the addition of the average rate of profit (instead of the surplus value actually produced) to the value of the inputs transforms the individual value of the outputs into their transformed value, or price of production. In short, the value of the inputs is not transformed while the value of the outputs is transformed into their production prices. This, in essence, is Marx’s transformation procedure, i.e. his price theory.

Even though a first critique was put forward by von Bohm-Bawerk [2] shortly after the appearance of Capital III, by far the most influential attack on Marx’s transformation procedure has been mounted by von Bortkiewicz [3] which has been brought to the modern readership’s attention by Sweezy. [4] Essentially, the main criticism to Marx’s approach revolves around the argument that, since the same commodity is bought and sold at the same price, some capitalists sell their output at their transformed value but other capitalists buy the same products as inputs at their individual, non transformed value. The same commodity, then, would be bought at its individual, non-transformed value but sold at its transformed value, or production price. This would be a logical inconsistency undermining Marx’s theoretical project. This supposed inconsistency would be responsible for the fact that, on these assumptions, the purchasing power needed to buy some commodities is insufficient to start a new process while the purchasing power needed to buy some other inputs exceeds that which is needed. Simple reproduction, or production on the same scale, fails. [5] But if the theory cannot show how the system reproduces itself, it is the whole theory that is called into question.

However, after the articles by Perez, Ernst, and Carchedi in the early 1980s’ [6], it has become clear that the critique is based on wrong the assumption that the same commodities are both the inputs and the outputs of the same period whereas for Marx as well as in reality the inputs of a production process are not the outputs of the same process: the inputs enter the production period at a certain point in time and the outputs, different commodities even if they might be a replica of the inputs, exit the period at a different, later point in time. This is Marx’s temporalist approach.

From a temporalist perspective, the output of a period becomes the input of the following period. For example, a machine is bought and sold at the same price but while this is the production price for the seller (who realizes the average rate of profit, at least tendentially) it is the individual value for the buyer because that machine will realize more or less than the value paid for it when the output of which that machine is an input will be sold at its production price. As Marx elucidates: ‘ Although [the inputs, G.C.] entered the labour process with a definite value, they may come out of it with a value that is larger or smaller, because the labour time society needs for their production has undergone a general change.’ [7]

From a temporal perspective, i.e. from the perspective of the economy as a succession of periods of production and realization, the purported logical inconsistency melts like snow in the sun. Not having seen this simple point, some Marxists have accepted the simultaneist methodology, i.e. that the same commodities are both the inputs and the outputs of the same period, and have resorted to simultaneous equations to determine the prices of the inputs and of the outputs of the same process simultaneously, thus cancelling time. This is the simultaneist approach. [8] Consequently, these authors theorize capitalism as a system in which time does not exist.

Some of them think that it is warranted to theorize capitalism within a timeless dimension as a first approximation and that subsequently time can be plugged into the analysis to reach a greater realisms. But this is wishful thinking because conclusions reached on the basis of opposite assumptions are opposite and irreconcilable. Either I assume that time exists or I assume that time does not exist. All the conclsions reached on the basis of one assumption are invalid on the basis of the opposite assumption.

If capitalism is an equilibrium system it is also a rational system. But then the working class is deprived of the objective grounds upon which to base its struggle against capital: if the system is rational, the workers’ struggle for the supersession of capital is irrational and voluntaristic because contrary to an objective, equilibrating movement.

Фагот, спровадив пострадавшего конферансье, объявил публике так:
-- Таперича, когда этого надоедалу сплавили, давайте откроем дамский магазин!

И тотчас пол сцены покрылся персидскими коврами, возникли громадные зеркала, с боков освещенные зеленоватыми трубками, а меж зеркал витрины, и в них зрители в веселом ошеломлении увидели разных цветов и фасонов парижские
женские платья. Это в одних витринах, а в других появились сотни дамских шляп, и с перышками, и без перышек, и с пряжками, и без них, сотни же туфель -- черных, белых, желтых, кожаных, атласных, замшевых, и с ремешками, и с
камушками. Между туфель появились футляры, и в них заиграли светом блестящие грани хрустальных флаконов. Горы сумочек из антилоповой кожи, из замши, из шелка, а между ними -- целые груды чеканных золотых продолговатых футлярчиков, в которых бывает губная помада.

Черт знает откуда взявшаяся рыжая девица в вечернем черном туалете, всем хорошая девица, кабы не портил ее причудливый шрам на шее, заулыбалась у витрин хозяйской улыбкой.

Фагот, сладко ухмыляясь, объявил, что фирма совершенно бесплатно производит обмен старых дамских платьев и обуви на парижские модели и парижскую же обувь. То же самое он добавил относительно сумочек, духов и прочего.

Кот начал шаркать задней лапой, передней и в то же время выделывая какие-то жесты, свойственные швейцарам, открывающим дверь. Девица хоть и с хрипотцой, но сладко запела, картавя, что-то малопонятное, но, судя по женским лицам в партере, очень соблазнительное:
-- Герлэн, шанель номер пять, мицуко, нарсис нуар, вечерние платья, платья коктейль...
Фагот извивался, кот кланялся, девица открывала стеклянные витрины.
-- Прошу! -- орал Фагот, -- без всякого стеснения и церемоний!

Публика волновалась, но идти на сцену пока никто не решался. Но наконец какая-то брюнетка вышла из десятого ряда партера и, улыбаясь так, что ей, мол, решительно все равно и в общем наплевать, прошла и по боковому трапу поднялась на сцену.
-- Браво! -- вскричал Фагот, -- приветствую первую посетительницу! Бегемот, кресло! Начнем с обуви, мадам.
...........................................................................

Старые туфли брюнетки были выброшены за занавеску, и туда же проследовала и сама она в сопровождении рыжей девицы и Фагота, несшего на плечиках несколько модельных платьев. Кот суетился, помогал и для пущей важности повесил себе на шею сантиметр.

Через минуту из-за занавески вышла брюнетка в таком платье, что по всему партеру прокатился вздох. Храбрая женщина, до удивительности похорошевшая, остановилась у зеркала, повела обнаженными плечами, потрогала волосы на затылке и изогнулась, стараясь заглянуть себе за спину.
-- Фирма просит вас принять это на память, -- сказал Фагот и подал брюнетке открытый футляр с флаконом.
-- Мерси, -- надменно ответила брюнетка и пошла по трапу в партер. Пока она шла, зрители вскакивали, прикасались к футляру.

И вот тут прорвало начисто, и со всех сторон на сцену пошли женщины. В общем возбужденном говоре, смешках и вздохах послышался мужской голос: "Я не позволю тебе!" -- и женский: "Деспот и мещанин, не ломайте мне руку!"

Женщины исчезали за занавеской, оставляли там свои платья и выходили в новых. На табуретках с золочеными ножками сидел целый ряд дам, энергично топая в ковер заново обутыми ногами. Фагот становился на колени, орудовал
роговой надевалкой, кот, изнемогая под грудами сумочек и туфель, таскался от витрины к табуретам и обратно, девица с изуродованной шеей то появлялась, то исчезала и дошла до того, что уж полностью стала тарахтеть по-французски, и
удивительно было то, что ее с полуслова понимали все женщины, даже те из них, что не знали ни одного французского слова.

Общее изумление вызвал мужчина, затесавшийся на сцену. Он объявил, что у супруги его грипп и что он поэтому просит передать ей что-нибудь через него. В доказательство же того, что он действительно женат, гражданин был готов предъявить паспорт. Заявление заботливого мужа было встречено хохотом,
Фагот проорал, что верит, как самому себе, и без паспорта, и вручил гражданину две пары шелковых чулок, кот от себя добавил футлярчик с помадой.

Опоздавшие женщины рвались на сцену, со сцены текли счастливицы в бальных платьях, в пижамах с драконами, в строгих визитных костюмах, в шляпочках, надвинутых на одну бровь.

Тогда Фагот объявил, что за поздним временем магазин закрывается до завтрашнего вечера ровно через одну минуту, и неимоверная суета поднялась на сцене. Женщины наскоро, без всякой примерки, хватали туфли. Одна, как буря, ворвалась за занавеску, сбросила там свой костюм и овладела первым, что подвернулось, -- шелковым, в громадных букетах, халатом и, кроме того, успела подцепить два футляра духов.

Ровно через минуту грянул пистолетный выстрел, зеркала исчезли, провалились витрины и табуретки, ковер растаял в воздухе так же, как и занавеска. Последней исчезла высоченная гора старых платьев и обуви, и стала сцена опять строга, пуста и гола.

Публика потоками выливалась из здания Варьете на улицу. До чрезвычайно обострившегося слуха финдиректора вдруг донеслась отчетливая милицейская трель. Сама по себе она уж никогда не сулит ничего приятного. А когда она повторилась и к ней на помощь вступила другая, более властная и продолжительная, а затем присоединился и явственно слышный гогот, и даже какое-то улюлюкание,
финдиректор сразу понял, что на улице совершилось еще что-то скандальное и пакостное. И что это, как бы ни хотелось отмахнуться от него, находится в теснейшей связи с отвратительным сеансом, произведенным черным магом и его
помощниками. Чуткий финдиректор нисколько не ошибся.

Лишь только он глянул в окно, выходящее на Садовую, лицо его перекосилось, и он не прошептал, а прошипел:
-- Я так и знал!
В ярком свете сильнейших уличных фонарей он увидел на тротуаре внизу под собой даму в одной сорочке и панталонах фиолетового цвета. На голове у дамы, правда, была шляпка, а в руках зонтик. Вокруг этой дамы, находящейся в состоянии полного смятения, то приседающей, то порывающейся бежать куда-то, волновалась толпа, издавая тот самый хохот, от которого у финдиректора проходил по спине мороз. Возле дамы
метался какой-то гражданин, сдирающий с себя летнее пальто и от волнения никак не справляющийся с рукавом, в котором застряла рука.

Крики и ревущий хохот донеслись и из другого места -- именно от левого подъезда, и, повернув туда голову, Григорий Данилович увидал вторую даму, в розовом белье. Та прыгнула с мостовой на тротуар, стремясь скрыться в подъезде, но вытекавшая публика преграждала ей путь, и бедная жертва своего легкомыслия и страсти к нарядам, обманутая фирмой проклятого Фагота, мечтала только об одном -- провалиться сквозь землю. Милиционер устремлялся к несчастной, буравя воздух свистом, а за милиционером поспешали какие-то развеселые молодые люди в кепках. Они-то и испускали этот самый хохот и улюлюканье.

Усатый худой лихач подлетел к первой раздетой и с размаху осадил костлявую разбитую лошадь. Лицо усача радостно ухмылялось.

-- Вчера вы изволили фокусы делать...
-- Я? -- воскликнул в изумлении маг, -- помилосердствуйте. Мне это даже как-то не к лицу!
-- Виноват, -- сказал опешивший буфетчик, -- давать сеанс черной магии...
..................................................................

--... в числе прочего бумажки слетели с потолка, -- буфетчик понизил голос и конфузливо оглянулся, -- ну, их все и похватали. И вот заходит ко мне в буфет молодой человек, дает червонец, я сдачи ему восемь с полтиной... Потом другой.
-- Тоже молодой человек?
-- Нет, пожилой. Третий, четвертый. Я все даю сдачи. А сегодня стал проверять кассу, глядь, а вместо денег -- резаная бумага. На сто девять рублей наказали буфет.
-- Ай-яй-яй! -- воскликнул артист, -- да неужели ж они думали, что это настоящие бумажки? Я не допускаю мысли, чтобы они это сделали сознательно.

But, as in Marx the system is irrational because it tends objectively towards crises and thus towards its self-destruction, the workers’ struggle is grounded upon and becomes the expression of this objective movement, it is thus rational and not voluntaristic. Seen from a Marxist, temporal perspective the system, then, is in a permanent state of non-equilibrium. [9] The issue of internal consistency, the battle ground upon which both upholders and critics of Marx have been fighting in the past decennia, is certainly important. But the crucial point is not only that the so-called transformation problem is a non-existent problem, once one reintroduces time in the analysis. [10] It is even more important to realize that the simultaneist alternative deals a deadly blow to the workers’ struggle by undermining the objective grounds upon which to base its fight. And this is the point that has escaped the commentators on both sides of the debate. [11

There are other positive features in the book such as the development of the implications in Marx’s and Engels’ theory of imperialism and of the increasing famine and environmental destruction which are integral parts of capitalist development. This is the object of the last three chapters. Also of great interest is the detailed analysis of the capitalist economy’s course in the second half of the twentieth century and of the crises that are the signposts of this course. This is what chapters 6 through 11 are about. These chapters are both clearly written and informative. But, aside from these positive features three critical comments are in order.

Harman stresses correctly that “the only source of value ... is labour” so that if constant capital invested grows proportionally more than variable capital, in other words if the organic composition of capital grows, the average rate of profit falls. The reason for this fall is technological competition that gives a cutting edge to the innovators at the expense of the laggards (p.70). However, there are four ambiguities in the text that should be clarified. They concern more the exposition than the theoretical content of the book.

The first ambiguity is that Harman, after having pointed out that the rate of profit falls because technological competition expels labour and thus reduces the source of value, seems to stress that that fall is due to lower prices following a rapid rate of accumulation “and this hits profits”(p.60) . Within a temporal perspective, lower output prices at the end of this period are also lower input prices at the beginning of the next period and all we have is a temporary fluctuation in the average profit rate. However, in terms of value analysis, a lower production of value during this period is also a lower realization of value at the end of this same period and thus less value can be invested in the next period. On this account, the fall in the production of value and thus in profitability is permanent. But, as we shall see shortly, lower unit prices (values) cannot be the cause of crises.

The second ambiguity, which is related to the first one, is that whereas the increase in the organic composition is identified by Harman as the ultimate cause of the fall in the average rate of profit, in the actual exposition of the argument the increase in the organic composition of capital seems to be one of the many factors affecting the course of the average profit rate. It might be worth recalling that the increase in the organic composition of capital is the tendency while the fall in that composition due for example to the cheaper means of production as a consequence of the same technological innovations is one of the counter-tendencies. The cheaper means of production reduce the value of the output produced with those means of production. The producers still using the old and more expensive means of production can charge for their output only what it would have cost them to produce that output with the new and cheaper means of production. They suffer a loss for that much. For them it is as if some capital had been destroyed. But there is no destruction of capital for the economy as a whole because the value they do not realize is redistributed to the producers using the new and cheaper means of production through the price mechanism. The depreciation of the old means of production is thus no destruction of value and thus cannot be the factor (or one of the factors) that accounts for the revival of the economy. To hold the contrary would mean to hold onto an individualistic methodology, the very opposite of Marx’s method. Rather, if capital is a social relation, a relation between capital and labour, the destruction of capital is basically the termination of those relations that becomes manifest as unemployment.

The third ambiguity concerns the relation between Harman’s analysis and the so-called Value Form Theory.

According to the author, “The concrete labours of the individuals is transformed through exchange ... into a proportionate part of “homogeneous”, “social” labour – or abstract labour” (p.26, see also p.117).

This formulation could suggest that Harman adheres to the Value Form theory, something he does not. Yet, in my opinion, the passage above is or can be misleading. The Value Form theory should be rejected not so much because it deviates from Marx but because, by deviating from Marx, it becomes logically inconsistent.

First, use values are different by definition. Exchange cannot equalize them because equalization or quantitative comparability presupposes that something that makes exchange possible. Two apples cannot be exchanged for one pear unless something establishes that exchange ratio prior to exchange, at the level of production. If this is not done, the exchange ratios become indeterminate.

Money cannot fulfil the role of the homogenizing factor. To express something common to the different use values, money must be the necessary form of existence of something common to those different use values. This something cannot be any concrete labour but has to be the abstract labour contained in those commodities. [12] By holding that exchange equalizes and thus expresses quantitatively the different use values, the Value Form approach joins the orthodox and the neo-Ricardian economics. Therefore, like the neo-Ricardian and the neo-classical theories, the Value Form Theory too shipwrecks against the incommensurability problem. It is just because of this that Marx introduced abstract labour at the level of production.

Second, as Marx points out, at the moment of exchange the use value of the commodity is null. At the moment of exchange, the commodity sold has no use value for the seller for the simple reason that the seller cannot use it any longer and has no use value for the buyer either because the buyer cannot use it yet. Exchange would conjure up value out of nothing, out of non-existent use values. [13]

Third, if concrete labour is created in production and thus is embodied in the product before exchange (a non-contentious point) and if abstract labour is socially validated concrete labour in exchange (the Value Form thesis), then the substance of abstract labour would be use values. The substance of value, then, understood here as concrete labour, would be embodied in the commodity before exchange, it would exist before social validation contrary to the Value Form position. And finally, if abstract labour comes to life only at the moment and through exchange [14], if it does not exist before exchange, the difference between production of value and its realization is erased. Identity of production and realization implies cancelling time, i.e. simultaneism, with the conclusions outlined above. [15]

Finally, the fourth ambiguity that would require clarification is the relation between the law and underconsumption. Harman quotes Marx to the effect that “the antagonistic conditions of distribution ... reduce the consumption of the bulk of society to a minimum” (p.58). While this passage has been interpreted as if lower wages made it impossible for labour to consume all the produced wage goods, thus decreasing profits and contributing to the emergence or worsening of the crisis, Harman correctly rejects this interpretation. In a private correspondence, Harman points out that “cutting workers wages of consumption can provide the conditions for preventing a fall in the rate of profit (or even increase the rate of profit), but does not guarantee that an increase in investment follows, and if there is no increase in investment there will be a crisis of realisation”. But in his book Harman submits that if firms can force down real wages, some consumer goods will go unsold and profit rates will fall thus “producing recession” (76). This passage could be interpreted as if lower wages would decrease the average rate of profit rather than increasing it. However, for Marx lower wages increase profit rates, always. It is for Keynes that lower wages can decrease profits through the workers’ underconsumption, i.e. due unsold wage goods. What follows shows the fallacy of underconsumption.

To begin with, let us consider the most favourable case for underconsumptionism. Suppose that all the commodities not purchased by labour cannot be purchased by capital either. Labour’s purchasing power falls by the amount of the wage cut and this is a loss for the producers (capitalists) of wage goods. This wage cut is then the maximum loss for capital due to lower wages. The extra surplus value accruing to capital due to lower wages is cancelled because the unsold commodities are a loss: ‘ the labourer has been indeed exploited, but his exploitation is not realised as such for the capitalist’. [16] Gain and loss cancel each other out and the numerator of the profit rate (the surplus value) returns to the level prior to the wage cut. But the average rate of profit does not rerun to this level because the denominator (the constant and variable capital) is now lower by the amount of the wage cut. Thus the average rate of profit is higher than its pre-wage cut level even in the case of maximum loss (all the wage goods corresponding to the wage cuts are unsold). This is sufficient to definitely reject the underconsumptionist thesis, i.e. that crises are caused or aggravated by lower wages. [17]

If underconsumption cannot cause the crisis, it must be a consequence of the crisis. For Marx, the ultimate cause of crises should be sought in the introduction of new technologies. They on the one hand increase labour’s productivity (units of output per unit of capital invested) and on the other reduce the labour power relative to the means of production employed per unit of capital, i.e. increase the ratio of constant capital to variable capital (the organic composition of capital). If less variable capital and more constant capital is employed percentagewise, the average rate of profit falls. It falls not “because labour becomes less productive, but because it becomes more productive”. [18] This is the tendency that explains the origin of crises. There are counter-tendencies that hold back, even if only temporarily, the tendential fall. But let us consider only the tendency in order to better evaluate the alternative theories.

Suppose an initial situation in the consumption goods sector such that 80c+20v+20s = 120V is incorporated in 120 means of consumption (use values). If abstraction is made of the means of production sector, the average rate of profit (ARP) is 20%. Suppose now that new technologies are introduced so that the new situation is 90c+10v+10s =110V incorporated in 220 means of consumption. The ARP falls to 11.11%. The unit price falls from 120/120 = 1 to 220/110 = 0.5. Before the new technologies, the 120 consumption goods were distributed in equal parts between capital and labour (given that the rate of exploitation was 20s/20v = 100%). After the introduction of the new technologies, each class receives 110 consumption goods. Under the assumption that each unit of variable capital represents a worker, 10 workers have lost their job. However, all consumption goods have been sold and the rate of exploitation has remained the same. Unemployment does not necessarily create underconsumption if the goods not bought by the unemployed worker are bought by those who are still employed. There is no underconsumption either if the rate of exploitation rises and the capitalists buy the goods that cannot be bought by the workers.

There is underconsumption only if neither the capitalists nor the workers can purchase all the consumption goods. This is the crisis of underconsumption. But this presupposes that the economy has already entered the crisis because now the purchasing power at the disposal of both classes is insufficient. The question, then is what is the cause of the lack of purchasing power. This is the profitability crisis, the fall of the ARP from 20% to 11.11% in the example above, due in its turn to technological competition which is the motor of capitalist dynamism.

It follows that crises are not caused by a decreased consumption of the means of consumption (underconsumption) but by an increased production of consumption goods per unit of capital invested together with a decreased production of value and surplus value per unit of capital invested. This movement becomes manifest as a fall in the ARP. It follows also that crises are not due to a fall in prices. In the example above, unit prices fall from 1.0 to 0.5 but they fall because less value and surplus value has been produced. They are a consequence and a manifestation of the crisis, not their cause.

In short, crises are caused neither by lower wages, nor by underconsumption, nor by falling prices. They are due to the decreasing production of value and surplus value as a consequence of technological competition, something that appears in the apparently irrational contradiction between a falling ARP together with a rise in the goods produced and a fall in employment. In the last analysis, the extent and depth of the crisis is measured by the rate of unemployment and of exploitation. This is the perspective of the collective labourer.

The average hides fundamental differences. Crises do not result in a general impoverishment but the impoverishment of the majority together with a concentration of wealth in the hands of a minority. As far as the workers go, in the above example those who have not lost their jobs receive a greater quantity (but the same percentage share) of consumption goods because the rate of exploitation has not changed. However, due to a greater bargaining power following rising unemployment, the capitalists can force the employed (and the same applies to pensioners, etc.) to accept lower wages and higher rates of exploitation. This enriches the capitalists as a whole but impoverishes the labourers. But within this greater appropriation of value, some capitalists gain more and other gain less and might even go bust. Let us see how and why.

Consider two capitalists within the same sector (a similar argument can be made in case of more than one sector). Originally, they both use the same, low technology, e.g. 70c+30v+30s = 130V. The output is, say, 100 use values. Subsequently, one of them introduces a new, higher technology, e.g. 80c+20v+20s = 120V. This capital’s output rises to 400 use values. The ARP falls from 30% to 25%. But this average implies a redistribution of surplus value. The unit price (value) is now 250/500 = 0.5. The high technology capital realizes 400x0.5 = 200V and thus a profit of 100 and a rate of profit of 100%. The low technology capital realizes 100x0.5 = 50V and thus loses 50V. In this example, the former capital appropriates not only the surplus value (30) but also a part of the value invested by the latter capital (20). The movement expressing itself as the fall in the ARP causes en enrichment of the capitalist class as a whole but within it a concentration of value in the hands of the most efficient capitals at the cost of the less efficient capitalists (many of whom fold up in times of crises) and of rising unemployment and of higher rates of exploitation.

Marx’s approach has been variously challenged by Marxists and non-Marxists alike. Let us evaluate the most influential alternative explanations.

(1) The physicalist theories, basically the neo-classical, the neo-Ricardian and the Keynesian theories, reach conclusions opposite to those of Marx. The reason is that they reject the reality of abstract labour and thus of value and reason only in terms of use values. If only use values and thus if only concrete labour are thought to exist, if abstract labour as the creator of value is evicted, then labour is reduced to a cost (rather then to the value creating activity) and an increase in productivity cannot but reduce the cost of production per unit of capital invested. It follows that for physicalism, if new technologies are introduced the ARP rises instead of falling. But there is a problem here: physicalism, by rejecting the reality of abstract labour shipwrecks against the incommensurability problem. Very simply put, use values are by definition different. Then, in the absence of that homogeneous substance that is abstract labour, no quantitative measurement and comparison is possible. Unfortunately for physicalism, no solution exists for this internal inconsistency. Keynes was aware of the problem. After having noticed that “Two incommensurable collections of miscellaneous objects cannot in themselves provide the material for a quantitative analysis,” he comes up with a truly astonishing consideration: t his “fact ... need not, o f course, prevent us from making approximate statistical comparisons”. [19] As if two incommensurable quantities could be ‘approximately’ measured and compared! They cannot, either exactly or approximately. The reason for this ‘oversight’ is that no physicalist author can admit of this inconsistency for two fundamental reasons. First, to admit that there is a problem of incommensurability would mean to admit that the whole theory is built on quicksand. Second, if the theory is indefensible it becomes impossible to hold onto the position that technological innovations, the factor that accounts for capitalism’s dynamism, increase the ARP rather than decreasing it, that capitalism tends towards growth and equilibrium rather than towards crises, i.e. that it is a rational system. But physicalism’s reason of existence is that it ‘shows’ that the system is rational, that the workers’ struggle to abolish capitalism and replace it with a different one is both objectively irrational and subjectively voluntaristic. Which is exactly capital’s view.

(2) It has been argued above that the attempt to single out a too low level of wages as the prime cause of crises leads to a theoretical inconsistency. The opposite approach is the ‘profit squeeze’ theory that was popular within some Marxist circles in the 1970’s and which seems to have a revival nowadays. This theory stresses that crises are due to a too high level of wages. Given that wages and profits are in inverse relation, this approach seems to fit eminently well into Marx’s paradigm. Unfortunately, the supporters of this view seem to ignore that Marx once remarked: “nothing is more absurd ... then to explain the fall in the rate of profit by a rise in the rate of wages”. The reason is that “The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is bound up with a tendency of the rate of surplus-value to rise.” [20] In other words, it is just when capital is hit by the crisis and labour is hit by unemployment that capital can force higher rates of exploitation on the workers. [21] Marx’s argument is correct, but does not address the issue of the origin of crises. The argument can be complemented by further considerations. First of all, concerning the present crisis, one would expect that the world economy, and especially the US economy, would have embarked long ago on a long-term period of economic growth, given the value of minimum wages in the US has fallen by no less than 25.7% in the 1967-2005 period. [22] Secondly, on a more theoretical level, in order to understand the origin of crises one has to start from a period of economic growth. According to the profit-squeeze theory, in the upwards phase of the cycle at a certain point wages start rising, thus eating away into profits. However, in the upwards phase profits increase, unless one wants to define this phase as one of falling profits! Thus, in terms of the theory, in this phase both profits and wages must increase. This is possible only if the mass of both value and surplus value increases. And this is exactly what happens. Suppose that surplus value increases by, say, 5% due to expanded reproduction. Any redistribution of this extra surplus value is theoretically possible. For example, 1% can go to wages and 4% to profits. Hence, in the high phase higher wages do not necessarily decrease profits and crises do not follow. The theory is fails. But there is more. The thermometer of the capitalist economy’s health is the ARP, rather than the mass of surplus value. In a period of growth new production units come into being. If they have a higher organic composition, the mass of surplus value rises but the ARP falls. Which explains why and how the seeds of crises are already present in the upwards phase of the cycle.

There is one way one could try and rescue the profit squeeze theory, the assumption that the mass of surplus value falls instead of rising. In this case, higher wages would indeed necessarily dent profits. But this would mean to fall out of the frying pan into the fire. In fact, one would assume what has to be explained, namely a decreasing mass of profit, i.e. the downwards phase, and thus the crisis.

A last critique. This theory leads naturally to the conclusion that crises could be avoided if only the workers were to restrain their demands. Then, the blame for the crises falls squarely upon the workers’ shoulders. Which is, again, music in capital’s ears.

(3) While the theories discussed above focus on one element as the prime cause of crises, some Marxist or Marxisant authors reject what they see as mono-causality, especially the tendential fall in the ARP. According to these authors, there is no single explanation valid for all crises, except that they are all a ‘property’ of capitalism, that crises are a property that becomes manifest differently in different forms in different periods and contexts. However, if this elusive and mysterious property becomes manifest as different causes of different crises while it itself remains unknowable, if we do not know all these different causes come from, we have no crisis theory. Moreover, if it is agreed that crises manifest themselves as a falling ARP (without necessarily agreeing that this fall is determined by an increasing organic composition and thus ultimately by technological competition), if one resorts to the theories criticized above for an explanation of the peculiarities of each crisis, one is left empty-handed because – as argued – none of those theories can explain that tendential fall except the tendential fall in the ARP.

(4) All the theories discussed above have Marx as a reference point, even if in various ways and degrees.

But there are also theories of a different and opposite kind that submit that the cause of crises resides in the financial and speculative sphere, namely in extremely high levels of debt, rampant speculation, a permissive monetary policy, the loosening of rules governing borrowing and lending due to deregulation, and so on. From here the crisis overflows into the real economy. In short, the crisis is due to mistakes in the financial and monetary sphere.

The obvious question is: given that crises area a constant and recurrent feature of capitalism, if they are due in the last instance to the mistakes of the financial and monetary authorities as well as of the politicians, of governments, etc., why do they recur as a constant feature of the system? In other words, why can the policy makers not learn from their mistakes? Obviously, there must be structural, economic reasons that not only prevent them from learning from their past mistakes but that actually force them to repeat recurrently those mistakes.

In other words, the origin of the financial and speculative crises should be sought in the real economy, in the production of value and surplus value, rather than as it is fashionable nowadays turning the relation of cause and effect upside-down.

========================================================
[1] This review article was finished a few days before Chris Harman’s untimely death.

[2] Von Bцhm-Bawerk argued that there is a contradiction between the first and the third volume of Capital. See: Von Bцhm-Bawerk, Eugen 1973 [1896], ‘Karl Marx and the Close of his System’, in Karl Marx and the close of his system, edited by Paul Sweezy, Fairfield: Kelley Publishers. For a refutation of this critique see Ernst, John 1982, ‘Simultaneous Valuation Extirpated: a Contribution of the Critique of the Neo-Ricardian Concept of Value’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 14, 2: 85-94; Carchedi ( 1984), The Logic of Prices As Values, Economy and Society, 13, 4: 431‑455; Freeman, Alan and Carchedi Guglielmo (eds.) 1996, Marx and Non–Equilibrium Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar and Kliman (2007), Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency, Lanham: Lexington Books.

[3] Von Bortkiewicz, Ladislaus 1971 [1906], ‘Calcolo del Valore e Calcolo del Prezzo nel Sistema Marxiano’, in von Bortkiewicz , La Teoria Economica di Marx, Torino: Einaudi. p .30

[4] Sweezy, Paul 1970 [1942], The Theory of Capitalist Development: Principles of Marxian Political Economy, New York: Monthly Review Press.

[5] The same applies to expanded reproduction.

[6] Perez, Manuel 1980, ‘Valeur et Prix: un Essai de Critique des Propositions Nйo-Ricardiannes’, Critiques de l’Economie Politique, Nouvelle Sйrie, 10: 122-149; Ernst, John 1982, ‘Simultaneous Valuation Extirpated: a Contribution of the Critique of the Neo-Ricardian Concept of Value’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 14, 2: 85-94; Carchedi (1984), The Logic of Prices As Values, Economy and Society, 13, 4: 431‑455.

[7] Marx, 1988 [1861-63], ‘Economic Manuscript of 1861—63’, in Marx and Engels Collected Works Volume 30, Moscow: Progress Publishers.

[8] Harman points out that “The method of simultaneous equations assumes that the price of the inputs to production have to be equal to the prices of the outputs. But they do not” (p.49). This is true. But the reason is that the inputs of a certain production process are not the outputs of the same process. This is the critical point from which the point made by Harman is derived.

[9] This is not the same as disequilibrium because disequilibrium, being a deviation from equilibrium, implies the latter. But equilibrium, and thus disequilibrium, are ideological concepts with no scientific value whatsoever.

[10] As Harman stresses, “Marx’s basic concepts survive all the criticisms once they are not interpreted through the static framework, ignoring the process of change through time that characterizes the neoclassical system”(p.53).

[11] For a more detailed exposition of the above, see Carchedi, Limits and Challenges of the Consistency Debate in Marxian Value Theory, Research in Political Economy, vol. 25, pp. 233-275. See also Carchedi, Behind the Crisis, Brill, Leiden, forthcoming.

[12] ‘Money is labour time in the form of a general object, or the objectification of general labour time, labour time as a general commodity.’ Marx, 1973 [1939], Grundrisse, Hardmondsworth: Penguin Books, p. 168.

[13] The commodity might have a subjective use value but this is irrelevant because at the moment of exchange the objective use value, the objective use to which that commodity can be put is non-existent. The alternative is to step over to a subjectivist theory of prices, that is, to leave Marx definitely.

[14] For Arthur, abstract labour has no material existence before exchange. See Chris Arthur 2004, The New Dialectic and Marx’s ‘Capital’, Historical Materialism Book Series, Leiden: Brill. For Murray general abstract labour is ‘nothing actual.’ See Murray, Patrick 2000, ‘Marx’s “Truly Social” Labor Theory of Value. Part I, Abstract Labor in Marxian Value Theory’, Historical Materialism, 6: 27-65. For Heinrich “value can only exist if there is an independent and general form of value – money”. See Michael Heinrich 2004, ‘Ambivalences of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy as Obstacles for the Analysis of Contemporary Capitalism’, Historical Materialism, Annual Conference, 10 October, London, revised paper.

[15] For a much more detailed critique of the Value Form Theory and of its many internal inconsistencies, see Carchedi, 2009, The Fallacies of ‘New Dialectics’ and Value-Form Theory, Historical Materialism, 17, pp. 145-169.

[16] Marx, 1967, Capital , Volume III, Progress Publishers: Moscow. p. 244.



[17] In a two-sector economy, an increase in the average rate of profit takes place at the cost of labour (due to lower wages and to lower purchasing power for wage goods) and at the cost of the capitalists producing wage goods. The average rate of profit rises because the gains in sector 1 more than compensate the loss in sector 2. For a rigorous proof, see Guglielmo Carchedi, Behind the Crisis, Brill, Leiden, forthcoming.

[18] Marx, Capital III, International Publishers, 1967, p. 240.

[19] John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Harcourt, Brace and World Inc., 1964, p. 39.

[20] Marx 1967, Capital Volume III, Progress Publishers: Moscow, p. 240.

[21] It is clear that, within this context, the fall in the rate of profit is the tendency while the rise of the rate of surplus value is the counter-tendency.

[22] Bernstein Jared, Mishel Lawrence and Shierholz Heidi 2006-7, The State of Working America, Washington: Economic Policy Institute, table 3.40.

Как правильно пишет Carchedi, стоимость СОЗДАЁТСЯ трудом в производстве, но, как верно указывает Chris Harman, стоимость РЕАЛИЗУЕТСЯ стоимость лишь в процессе обмена. Диалектика производства и реализации стоимости - самая сложная часть теории стоимости. От правильного понимания этого вопроса зависит определение ключевых терминов ТТС, а значит и успех её как количественной теории. Правильное понимание терминов предполагает возможность их квантификации - выражения в виде числовых величин с однозначно прописанными процедурами сопоставления этих величин с наблюдаемыми данными и фактами. "Количество абстрактного труда" или "величина стоимости" - не просто какие-то обобщённые ориентиры, призванные качественно отразить фундаментальные законы динамики рыночной экономики. Это определённые научные термины - без которых невозможно адекватно описать процесс развития капиталистической системы.

Как в физике, например, без понятия "энергия" или "импульс" невозможно решать задачи динамики, точно так же нельзя понять динамику рыночной системы, не применяя для этого определённые термины - "абстрактный труд" и "стоимость". Подобно тому, как в физике значение терминов "энергия" и "импульс" глубоко отлично от того смысла, который эти слова имеют в повседневном обиходе, - точно так же в ДТТС смысл терминов "абстрактный труд" и "стоимость" отличается от смысла, который мы привыкли приписывать этим словам в своей повседневной жизни.

"Труд" как термин ДТТС и "труд" как понятие повседневной жизни - отличаются. Это различие имеет ту же природу, что и различие, которое существует между научным термином физики "энергия" и словом "энергия" в его повседневном употреблении. В физике понятие "энергии" опирается на сложную структуру соотношений многих научных терминов этой дисциплины (принцип симметрии относительно сдвигов во времени, интеграл действия,...). Хотя мы используем в обычной жизни слово "энергия" (говорим, например: "энергичный человек, у него много энергии"...), но совершенно ясно, что не этот смысл мы имеем ввиду, когда делаем точные расчёты в физике, оперируя понятием "энергия".

Аналогично, и в теории трудовой стоимости "труд" - это прежде всего определённый термин, смысл которого определяется сложной системой взаимосвязей теоретических конструкций, понятий и процедур, лежащих в основе этой теории, и правил сопоставления её с реальностью. Именно через эту системную взаимосвязь теоретических постулатов, понятий и процедур ТТС, термин "труд" и обретает внутри ДТТС свой точный смысл, который можно перевести на язык математики. Системная взаимосвязь эта была описана Марксом в главе "Форма стоимости", но, кажется, так до сих пор и не формализована. Возможно, Harman, Chris был близок к ДТТС - но сейчас это уже не важно.