For your last point, I think most Marxists would avoid this type of interpretation as it accepts the bourgeoisie’s own ideology of individual property rights.
When I say “bargain” I don’t mean a civilized transaction. I get the systemic violence. But isn’t it a kind of bargain? Isn’t that the whole point of a union? The individual worker has little or no bargaining power, because we are easily replaced, which is why we band together and threaten to withhold labor as a group.
In the early days of industrial wage labor, we had no unions or legislation to protect us. Our wages were individual bargains — and yes, our main leverage was that that we needed to stay alive to work. Our main threat was, “If you pay me any less, or work me any harder, I may starve and be too weak to work.” That continued until the labor movement had sufficiently demonstrated the power of organized labor, forcing capital to grant concessions to stop us from radicalizing and militarizing any further.
But capitalists also depend on bargaining power — they just have a lot more of it than we do. If tomorrow the cops and the feds suddenly stopped protecting private property, and announced, “workers, you now have the choice to commandeer your boss’s business and run it however you want,” profits would vanish. The owners would no longer have the leverage to pay themselves millions of dollars a year, because we would just take over the business and keep the profits ourselves.
My apologies for talking too much. I’m very long winded. Again, I can give some examples for your first question if still interested!
Not at all! Thanks for taking the time. And yeah, I am interested.
Give me a bit to write it up and I’ll send you what I got!
But, I wanted comment on something you mentioned before I go.
… but I’m confused by the static part. Naively, someone might interpret the phrase “prices that allow an economy to reproduce itself” to mean “prices that cover production cost plus owner spending habits,” because then everyone in the economy breaks even in their expenses and earnings over time, and the economy remains static.
I don’t think that’s a naïve interpretation, and in fact I think the insight there is spot on! When I say that natural prices are those prices that allow for the system to reproduce itself, I do mean the capitalist system. So natural prices under a capitalist formation must be able to reproduce the class exploitation of the capitalists (and hence their consumption), else it isn’t capitalism that is being reproduced.
In fact, bringing this insight into a definition of value is something that Ian Wright has done, and is part of his solution to the transformation problem, i.e. how to get natural prices from value. Essentially, his argument as I understand it is that one can create an extended measure of value that includes the labor required to cover products made for the owner’s consumption (surplus value), and that this extended measure of value is still a measure of value, just through lens of your insight. This extended measure of value is still measured in labor-hours, and is commensurate with prices under capitalism because while the surplus labor is not necessary for the workers, it is necessary for the system of capitalism to reproduce itself.
Though, like I mentioned before the transformation problem is worth its own post. And this is one solution, of many proposed, for the transformation problem.
The rest of your question was on the uniqueness of the solution
the problem would have no unique solution—there are infinitely many ways to assign arbitrary wages and prices in an economy
and I’ll respond with a write up on solving for natural prices with the framework I’m most familiar with.
Just want to let you know that I’m still very much interested (and I won’t lose interest so there’s no rush), but also, no pressure! if life gets in the way or you run out of steam it’s all good! Thanks either way. It’s a potentially laborious effortpost, on a niche forum, in a small thread where I might be the only person who reads it. Stoked if you do but 110% understand if you don’t.
Hey I just wanted to let you know that I am mostly done with my write up, but still need some finishing touches. I haven’t forgotten about it.
It’s gotten long, so I’m debating on whether to make it a comment or a separate post.
But it discusses how to set up equations to solve for the physical quantities and their prices in a Sraffian framework (while trying to tie it back to Marx)
I’m not the best writer so it may be long winded. Editing it would take a bit longer, but I sorta just want to get it done with lol.
It starts with just an overview of equilibrium in the classical vs the neoclassical schools, and then it builds up the framework starting with a pure labor economy. I add in means of production, and then finally include an exploiting class.
Value is briefly discussed, but not in great detail. I think I may end it by hinting at the transformation problem, showing research in this school that attempts to resolve it, and also showing some attempts to make a format dynamic model.
A lot of work, or the hinted future direction, is based off Ian Wright’s work as reading his papers was my entry way into this.
Thanks so much for taking the time! I’m very interested to read it
It’s gotten long, so I’m debating on whether to make it a comment or a separate post.
With this much effort, you should consider making a separate post so more people might see it — unless that means too much pressure to edit it
Editing it would take a bit longer, but I sorta just want to get it done with lol.
That could always be a separate post if you get around to it. Certainly there’d be people who didn’t see it the first time, or people who’d appreciate an edited version
I’m in the process of writing it up. I’m starting with a pure labor economy (simplest model and lays the foundation) and building it up from there. Not yet, finished but I am working on it.
And you may be the only one who reads it
but I’ve been wanting to write something like this up for a while anyways
Hopefully I dont get back to you within a year with some massive tome
Hell yeah, lay it on me.
When I say “bargain” I don’t mean a civilized transaction. I get the systemic violence. But isn’t it a kind of bargain? Isn’t that the whole point of a union? The individual worker has little or no bargaining power, because we are easily replaced, which is why we band together and threaten to withhold labor as a group.
In the early days of industrial wage labor, we had no unions or legislation to protect us. Our wages were individual bargains — and yes, our main leverage was that that we needed to stay alive to work. Our main threat was, “If you pay me any less, or work me any harder, I may starve and be too weak to work.” That continued until the labor movement had sufficiently demonstrated the power of organized labor, forcing capital to grant concessions to stop us from radicalizing and militarizing any further.
But capitalists also depend on bargaining power — they just have a lot more of it than we do. If tomorrow the cops and the feds suddenly stopped protecting private property, and announced, “workers, you now have the choice to commandeer your boss’s business and run it however you want,” profits would vanish. The owners would no longer have the leverage to pay themselves millions of dollars a year, because we would just take over the business and keep the profits ourselves.
Not at all! Thanks for taking the time. And yeah, I am interested.
Give me a bit to write it up and I’ll send you what I got!
But, I wanted comment on something you mentioned before I go.
I don’t think that’s a naïve interpretation, and in fact I think the insight there is spot on! When I say that natural prices are those prices that allow for the system to reproduce itself, I do mean the capitalist system. So natural prices under a capitalist formation must be able to reproduce the class exploitation of the capitalists (and hence their consumption), else it isn’t capitalism that is being reproduced.
In fact, bringing this insight into a definition of value is something that Ian Wright has done, and is part of his solution to the transformation problem, i.e. how to get natural prices from value. Essentially, his argument as I understand it is that one can create an extended measure of value that includes the labor required to cover products made for the owner’s consumption (surplus value), and that this extended measure of value is still a measure of value, just through lens of your insight. This extended measure of value is still measured in labor-hours, and is commensurate with prices under capitalism because while the surplus labor is not necessary for the workers, it is necessary for the system of capitalism to reproduce itself.
Though, like I mentioned before the transformation problem is worth its own post. And this is one solution, of many proposed, for the transformation problem.
The rest of your question was on the uniqueness of the solution
and I’ll respond with a write up on solving for natural prices with the framework I’m most familiar with.
Just want to let you know that I’m still very much interested (and I won’t lose interest so there’s no rush), but also, no pressure! if life gets in the way or you run out of steam it’s all good! Thanks either way. It’s a potentially laborious effortpost, on a niche forum, in a small thread where I might be the only person who reads it. Stoked if you do but 110% understand if you don’t.
Hey I just wanted to let you know that I am mostly done with my write up, but still need some finishing touches. I haven’t forgotten about it.
It’s gotten long, so I’m debating on whether to make it a comment or a separate post.
But it discusses how to set up equations to solve for the physical quantities and their prices in a Sraffian framework (while trying to tie it back to Marx)
I’m not the best writer so it may be long winded. Editing it would take a bit longer, but I sorta just want to get it done with lol.
It starts with just an overview of equilibrium in the classical vs the neoclassical schools, and then it builds up the framework starting with a pure labor economy. I add in means of production, and then finally include an exploiting class.
Value is briefly discussed, but not in great detail. I think I may end it by hinting at the transformation problem, showing research in this school that attempts to resolve it, and also showing some attempts to make a format dynamic model.
A lot of work, or the hinted future direction, is based off Ian Wright’s work as reading his papers was my entry way into this.
Thanks so much for taking the time! I’m very interested to read it
With this much effort, you should consider making a separate post so more people might see it — unless that means too much pressure to edit it
That could always be a separate post if you get around to it. Certainly there’d be people who didn’t see it the first time, or people who’d appreciate an edited version
I’m in the process of writing it up. I’m starting with a pure labor economy (simplest model and lays the foundation) and building it up from there. Not yet, finished but I am working on it.
And you may be the only one who reads it
but I’ve been wanting to write something like this up for a while anyways
Hopefully I dont get back to you within a year with some massive tome
Hell yeah
godspeed