LTV "consistent" with marginalism??

[Lyev]

I was browsing wikipedia on the theory of marginal utility and it's relations to the labour theory of value (the former, in most cases, is often painted as a critical response to the latter) and I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value#Jevons):
A close reading of Jevons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley_Jevons)' chapter on "Labor" in his "Theory of Political Economy" reveals that he considered his marginal analysis quite consistent with the labor theory of value as he established that in equilibrium marginal utility equals marginal labor value. It is indeed Jevons' revolutionary discovery that labor must be measured in terms of marginal labor value (δL/δX).I do not understand the equation at the end, but does this short passage affirm Marx or discredit him? From what I understand the two economic theories are usually quite opposed to each other. Jevons was a proponent of marginal utility. How can they be "consistent" with each other? Is it perhaps that, from a Marxist perspective, the concept of "marginal" labour value is flawed in itself? I know obviously that, because this theory and others similar to it are a product of the neoclassical school of economics, they accept wage-labour, surplus value, the accumulation of capital etc. etc., in a word, capitalism, as a given, so maybe that is partly their flaw, but other than that I don't really know how to go about tackling this whole issue. Thanks a lot

[Die Neue Zeit]

A German comrade whom Paul Cockshott knows formulated LTV using marginalist math and terminology.

[∞]

I was browsing wikipedia on the theory of marginal utility and it's relations to the labour theory of value (the former, in most cases, is often painted as a critical response to the latter) and I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value#Jevons):I do not understand the equation at the end, but does this short passage affirm Marx or discredit him? From what I understand the two economic theories are usually quite opposed to each other. Jevons was a proponent of marginal utility. How can they be "consistent" with each other? Is it perhaps that, from a Marxist perspective, the concept of "marginal" labour value is flawed in itself? I know obviously that, because this theory and others similar to it are a product of the neoclassical school of economics, they accept wage-labour, surplus value, the accumulation of capital etc. etc., in a word, capitalism, as a given, so maybe that is partly their flaw, but other than that I don't really know how to go about tackling this whole issue. Thanks a lot

I suspect he is trying to understand exact formulations that are analyzing the same thing. He uses the fact we have price equilibrium as proof for both the LTV and Marginal Theory of Value. That is not where an agreement should manifest itself. A Marxian would criticize Marginal Value as being post-hoc, a value system which ignores exploitation. So thats where the difference is, Marginal Theory reiterates what is in supply and demand. While Marxians know the importance of demand and labor. To Jevons, the mere fact they inspect the same reality makes them consistent with one another. Though much metaphysical speculation on the commodities themselves and the worker's labor are also what makes these theories different.

[∞]

A German comrade whom Paul Cockshott knows formulated LTV using marginalist math and terminology.

Many critiques of the LTV will use capitalist spreadsheets (and I mean ones that regard the Capitalist as doing useful labor) to prove the LTV wrong.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What capitalist spreadsheets? Cost accounting? Capital budgeting? In none of those business worksheets do "capitalists doing useful labour" calculations exist. It must be in the Economics hocus pocus.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/subjects/accountinggroup/research/working_papers/acc_con_of_labour_pro.pdf

[∞]

What capitalist spreadsheets? Cost accounting? Capital budgeting? In none of those business worksheets do "capitalists doing useful labour" calculations exist. It must be in the Economics hocus pocus.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/subjects/accountinggroup/research/working_papers/acc_con_of_labour_pro.pdf

I'm not talking about financial spreadsheets I'm talking about sheets, graphs, theorems, in which they regard the capitalist's "labor" as a variable. Yeah, particularly a Misesian tried pointing this out. And from my lurking on the Mises forums I've came across many of these algebraic fornications.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What are you studying right now, if you don't mind my asking?

It's pathetic to see an Austrian try math, since their "economics" is based on rejecting math! :lol:

[∞]

Well recently I've been reading some physics. But on occasion I read random sections of Capital, and watch some Lectures by Richard D. Wolff, Andrew Kliman, amongst others.

[Paul Cockshott]

It was Klaus Hagendorf who introduced me to the idea that Jevons was a supporter of the labour theory of value . See his papers http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pha465.htm

[MarxSchmarx]

It was Klaus Hagendorf who introduced me to the idea that Jevons was a supporter of the labour theory of value . See his papers http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pha465.htm

I don't have it on me,but I remember reading somewhere that the formal equivalency between the LTV and marginal theory of value was actually demonstrated several decades ago. Although I haven't finished reading it Hargendorf's argument seems more nuanced and if I can dig it up I'll post the reference to this claim.

[∞]

You might want to look up some works that Marginal theory actually presupposes the LTV.

[Dean]

You might want to look up some works that Marginal theory actually presupposes the LTV.

Source?

[∞]

http://eurodos.free.fr/mime/articles/Hagendorf%202009%20-%20The%20Labour%20Theory%20of%20Value.pdf