BOOKS
121
for labor, thereby reducing the n eed for la bor. But these arguments are
no longer distinnivc\y Marxian.
There is a still more fundamenta l ques ti on . The essen ce of the
neocl ass ical value theory is that values a re determined by a n imeraction
of des ires o r tastes with sca rcities. Of course, a commodity which ta kes
much la bor will be expen sive becau se it u ses up so much of a scarce
resource. But la bo r is no t the only sca rce resource. Diamonds, LO use the
old cliche, command value, no t because they req uire much effon to
find but becau se they a re so few. One could multipl y examples, but the
most impo n am qu es ti o n is th e va lue of la bor power. In Marxian
theory, surplus value ari ses becau se the value of la bo r power is less
than the value o f th e goods produced by il. Wh y is thi s so? In
Capital,
the answer seems clear: the value of la bor power, like tha t of an y o ther
commodity, equ a ls th e value of th e la bo r needed to produce il.
If
thi s
means anything a t a ll , thi s mean s tha t wages a re a t a subsisten ce level.
Harring ton is a t g rea t p a in s to den y thi s proposition, and indeed he
can produce texts LO support hi s inLerpreta ti on . But, then , what
replaces the subsisten ce theory? The neoclassica l viewpoint says, in
effect, that wages a re determin ed by the sca rcity of la bor. Marx would
appear
to
have no pani cul a r theo ry, excep t to say tha t they go up and
down with the busin ess cycl e and possibly tha t they a rt' a ffected by
bargaining and uni on pressures.
I do no t come to defend the n eoclass ica l theory; it does no t expl a in
unempl oymenL and it cannot do much with the pa tent fact tha t
competition is limited in inLen sity. But I do no t feel tha t th e deficien–
cies of neoclass ica l economi cs as a n expla n a tio n and predicLOr of the
economy are parti cul a rly well met by Ma rx 's th eori es. No r, though I do
not want to enLer a compl ex ma ller here, do I think th e neo-Ri ca rdi a n
theori es of Piere Sraffa and Joa n Ro binson panicularly h elpful. In
fact, despite Ha rring ton 's "War of the Two Cambridges," (in the
United States and the United Kingdom , thought of as exemplifyin g
neoclass ical and neo-Ri ca rdi a n thinking, respecti vely), I rega rd the
neo-Rica rdi an vi ewpo int as hard to di stingui sh from the n eocl ass ical.
As Harrin g ton h as stressed , th e va lue of Ma rxian a nalysis is no t so
much
to
arrive a t a mecha ni sm for prediClion as LO understand " the
pervasive li ght, the specia l a tmosphere" o f the times. The role of power
and parti cul arl y of economi c power in the running of the sta te and the
operati ons of the economy is pro ba bl y the po int LO whi ch Ma rxi 2.n
analysis is most u seful in directing a llenti on (th ough it must be
recognized tha t con serva tives are very good a t recognizing power ), as
Peter Drucker's book brings ou t). But the pri ce of fl exibility is vague-
