[OPE-L:2975] Re: Re: Re: Need 1 and Luxemburg's *Accumulation of Capital*

From: Andrew_Kliman (Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com)
Date: Tue May 02 2000 - 00:53:14 EDT

[ show plain text ]

A reply to OPE-L 2973.

Paul writes:

"It is not comparable. She was a VERY MAJOR figure in movement and could
not be just ignored with no acknowledgement that she had written
anything on the theory of accumulation."

This implicitly concedes my point. The way Luxemburg's _Accumulation of
Capital_ was treated by its critics was nowhere near as bad as the way
the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory has been
treated by its critics. You're accepting that as fact and giving us an
explanation of the fact.

I wrote:
: >What happened to the TSS interpretation was that discovery after
: >discovery was ignored, brushed aside with offhand *verbal* remarks,
or --: >finally, finally -- discussed on a PRIVATE e-mail list.
Its opponents: >have in the main tried mightily to keep from having
a public debate. When
: >acting as journal referees, they haven't encouraged publication of TSS
: >work together with their criticisms. Instead, they make private
: >criticisms, which they use to reject the publication of TSS work. And
: >because they keep the criticisms private, this hinders our ability to
: >respond to and refute them. It is a very dirty business.

Paul responds:

: Well, as you have acknowledged on this list, you are getting exposure
in: *Research in Political Economy*.

Does that excuse the things I referred to that have been going on for 20
years? Does it make up for them?

I don't give a hoot about "exposure." What is at issue is the fight
against a slanderous, false, and ideologically-motivated attack on
Marx's body of ideas. The ubiquitous claims that his value
theory has been proven to be internally consistent have been refuted,
again and again. But his critics keep refusing to acknowledge this.
I am fighting to make them retract their falsehoods and set the record
straight. No justice, no peace.


: I don't usually answer a question with a question, but do you care
: the definitions in Marx of mode of production, relations of production,
: productive forces, value, surplus value, constant capital, variable
: capital, production of absolute surplus value, production of relative
: surplus value, rate of profit?

I care to the extent that there are some *consequences* of the
definition. That's what I'm asking about here. So what if he didn't
define accumulation? What are the consequences?

BTW, I do not believe it was Marx's general practice to define terms
already in use.

I had written:

So perhaps we can get to the
: >heart of the matter thus: WHAT *WOULD* YOU ACCEPT AS A DEMONSTRATION
: >CONSUMER GOODS? If you specify the restrictions you that require,
: >try to show that the result can hold under these restrictions. I'm
: >confident I can do so given a reasonable set of restrictions.

Paul responds:
: I'm lost. What do "realism" of demonstrations mean? What
: (by Luxemburg or myself)?

Well, let me put it this way. I say that demand for means of production
can ultimately outstrip demand for consumer goods. You say it cannot.
So how can I demonstrate to you that it can? I'm aware that (for reasons
that are unclear to me) you do not accept existing demonstrations that it
can. I don't want to waste my time presenting another demonstration that
you will likewise reject for one reason or another. So what I want to
know is what you *would* accept as a demonstration. What conditions does
the demonstration need to satisfy? What will you allow and not allow
(e.g., homogeneous means of production, input substitution, etc.)?


Andrew Kliman

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EDT