3 Comments

    1. Hi waletjc

      Thanks for your question.

      The short answer (and in the absence of a proof) is that von WeizsΓ€cker and Samuelson’s “synchronized labour requirement costs” (SLRC) are a special case of super-integrated labour-values. In other words, in circumstances of balanced growth and zero capitalist consumption, then the super-integrated labour-values reduce to the SLRCs. The super-integrated labour-values are more general because they apply in circumstances of unbalanced growth and non-zero capitalist consumption. Also, von WeizsΓ€cker and Samuelson (if I recall) simply mark-up classical labour-values with a growth rate, and therefore do not identify the actual coexisting labour supplied that is the substance of the SLRCs.

      The more important point is that, in general, classical labour-values are not total labour-values, i.e. they do not count the total labour supplied to produce commodities in a capitalist economy (in fact they are only total labour-values in simple commodity production). This point is barely understood by most Marxist economists. This is why critics of Marx’s theory of value can construct (as von WeizsΓ€cker and Samuelson did in 1971) situations where classical labour-values cannot be used to efficiently organise the division of labour, even in the absence of capitalist exploitation. Another example: Pasinetti demonstrated that the existence of capitalist profit is not necessary for the divergence of natural prices and classical labour-values. In consequence, β€œtransformation problems” arise even in the absence of capitalist profit. Capitalist social relations are therefore merely a sufficient, not a necessary, condition for the divergence of natural prices and labour-values. All these more general “transformation problems” are fundamentally generated by the category-mistake of thinking that classical labour-values are total labour-values; see my https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/a-category-mistake-in-the-classical-labour-theory-of-value/

      Hope this is helpful!
      Ian.

      Like

      1. Thank you for your warm response. Yes, I have been following your work for some years. I find it interesting your super-integrated labour values and the intelligent categories that you are using. Obviously, recognition doesn’t mean that one discards the old way of accounting for values. Some curiosa like the Standard System fulfillment of the Marxian Aggregates and the recent postulates on Random Systems by Schefold make one to by cautious on category mistakes.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s