[OPE-L:4397] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical change and general truths

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 01 2000 - 10:19:48 EST

re 4393
>In other words, Keynesians interpreted Keynes to be saying something which
>was true in disequilibrium, but which could not be true in equilibrium.
>In fact, I and many other post Keynesians argue that this was wrong--Keynes
>was actually pointing out that the initial proposition that the sum of all
>excess demands was zero was itself false.
>Why this diversion? Because the way I interpret the way you portray Marx,
>you appear to be saying that Marx was a disequilibrium theorist whose
>propositions may be false in equilibrium, but are true in disequilibrium.
>In my opinion, Marx's views are true in equilibrium and in
>disequilibrium--but the way I read Marx, of course, invalidates the labor
>theory of value.

since i think capital is never in equilibrium, it would not restrict 
Marx's theory if it assumed that capital has to be in disequilbrium 
for its results to hold. The only "equilibrium" capital knows is a 
ratio of surplus labor in necessary labor in the exploitative labor 
process which allows accumulation to proceed and self correct over 
time its perpetual disproportionalities.

General crises, as opposed to the disequilibrium of everyday capital 
accumulation,  result from a "disproportionality" in the ratio of 
necessary to surplus labor in the production process which from 
capital's perspective diminishes the flow of surplus value needed for 
further accumulation only by means of which can capital effectively 
overcome its endemic partial crises and inherent disequilibrium (see 
Mattick, 1981).

all the best, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST