[OPE-L:4556] RE: Farjoun and Machover (and their admirers)

From: P.J.Wells@open.ac.uk
Date: Tue Nov 21 2000 - 13:40:32 EST

Hallo Rakesh

In #4555 you write:

So Julian are you all arguing that profit rate equalisation is not a 
real tendency which can be studied in the abstract?

Absolutely not denying that it is a real tendency...

 But capital is 
mobile and labor power can be rapidly moved; this gives a real 
foundation for the equalisation of profit rates. However, Marx 
himself however refers to an equalisation of ever renewed 
inequalities; he allows for certain capitals to drop out of the 
competition process altogether.  Why does Marx's analysis of the 
equalisation tendency in itself seem then to lead you all to think 
that Marx thought it ever operated in pure form?

I don't assert this about Marx and I'm not sure that F&M do either -- though
it is true that they complain about his adopting strict equalisation in his
work on transformation from values to prices

On the subject of your iterative solution you say

 the uniform profit rate would have to be initially 

I would ask -- and here I go beyond expounding F&M -- what you mean by
initially. My view is that what (individual) capitalists do (in terms of
adopting new technologies, and/or cracking the whip over their workers, and
many other things) determines at one and the same time both the total
surplus value and profit -- and hence the general rate of profit -- and the
share which the individual capitalist receives from that total -- and hence
the individual rate of profit.

What say you?

This reminds me that Chris Arthur was musing on the significance of the
general rate of profit several months back: Chris, if you're lurking on
these exchanges, do you have any further thoughts on this?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST