[OPE-L:3550] Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@Princeton.EDU)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2000 - 14:11:09 EDT

[ show plain text ]

>I also understand that you have a different criticism of Marx's
>determination of prices of production: that he failed to take into account
>the interrelations between different branches of production. I want to
>think about this criticism some more and will get back to you on it as
>soon as I have some time.
>Thanks again.

Yes, I don't understand why the interrelations among depts over time
requires that we adopt the assumption that input prices=output prices. The
study of input-output relations can be conducted on the basis of various
assumptions. I understand Fred arguing against only one of these

>On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Paul Cockshott wrote:

>> The historical advance in economic theory represented by the
>> Sraffian type of analysis was only possible because of the real
>> transcendence of capitalism in the USSR and the associated
>> development of I/O table based analysis. It was this that enabled
>> later marxist economists to escape from the limited viewpoint of
>> the individual capitalist, which Marx, at times still retains.

What then of the Physiocrats? Had they even transcended feudalism? At any
rate, the USSR did not escape the flow of time as simultaneous equations
do. And why not even recognize what break Marx accomplished in chs 9 and 10
from the limited point of view of the individual capitalist. After all, it
is the interconnections that his theory of the formation of the general
profit rate does disclose which allows to dissolve the paradox which
appears to the individual capitalist:

"How could living labour be the sole source of profit, in view of the fact
that a reduction in the quantity of labour required for production appears
not to exert any influence on profit? moreover, it even seems in certain
circumstances to be the nearest source of an increase of profits, at least
for the individual capitalist." (p.270, Penguin)

 Lastly, as for the expanded reproduction of capital: since it is driven
forward by the search for monopoly profit, i.e., unequal profit rates, I
don't see how any formalism that imposes a uniform profit from the outside
can be of much help in understanding real capitalist dynamics. We need a
theory which doesn't posit the uniform profit rate but explains through
which process it is actually formed even though individual profit rates at
best only oscillate around it, while a few individual artificial or natural
monopolies may actually can even fall out of this averaging process
Best, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT