[OPE-L:4979] Re: Re: Reply to Andrew on "Proof"

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Mon Feb 19 2001 - 21:01:51 EST


I'm going to get confused if I don't ask for a clarification.  Are you
agreeing that the schemes in themselves do not offer "proof" for solving
the problem of a faster growth of Dept. I over II?  And, if so, is it
merely because the schemes are in value terms or because of the inherent
problem of "proof". Remember that I'm trying to stay on the
epistemological question, not issues of expanded reproduction.  


******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> said, on 02/19/01:

>>I suggested that Marx's schemes might serve for you as a BASIS, rather
>>than itself PROOF, for solving the problem of a faster growth of Dept. I
>>over II.  You reply "both".  But when you get to the scheme itself, you
>>yourself have to interpret the role of the first period (you need to
>>engage in " 'stretching out'... Marx's example").  Whether right or wrong
>>is not the point.  The point is that it is NOT in Marx himself.  It
>>becomes an interpretation.  I suspect you and Grossman supporter will
>>chime in that this interpretation is right.  Yet that is using the schemes
>>as a BASIS for a proof, not the proof itself, i.e., you must introduce an
>>additional material to make your case.

>Paul Z,
>As I understand one element of Grossman's and Mattick Sr's argument  (I
>typed out the latter's translation of the former's analysis  previously):
>the reproduction schema cannot be used to prove the  necessity of
>underconsumptionism because after all the exchanges in  the schema are
>conducted in terms of values, not prices of production. Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST