[OPE-L:5065] RE: On "Proof" [continuing this dialogue]

From: Drewk (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2001 - 00:04:18 EST

In reply to OPE-L 5062:

I had written that the schema of reproduction prove that, "[a]s
far as Ic is concerned, Department I buys from itself and sells to
itself.  The extent of its
demand for its own stuff is thus what sets the limit to how much
of its own stuff it supplies to itself."

Paul replied:  "Not sure if there is dispute here.  "Extent of its
demand for its own stuff" is not addressed, just stated."

If this means that the schema do not, and/or I do not, "close" the
system, though some relation that expresses how the quantity of
means of production demanded by Dept. I is determined, I agree.
In fact, I think that open-endedness is a very important part of
the dynamics of capitalist accumulation.  So the schema do not
prove that the growth of Ic is without limits; far from it.  They
prove (in my estimation) "only" that the extent of demand for
consumer goods is not one of those limits.

I had written:

"But is it really a proof?  I think so.  By proof here, I mean
proof.  I do not see that anything more needs to be said, nor do I
see a
possible way of challenging Marx's deduction that demand for Ic
from Dept. I itself, not consumers."

Paul responds:

"How does this statement of Andrew's form part of a "proof" or

I don't think it does either.

Paul writes:

"I think "more needs to be said".  Specifically, the issue of
"demand for Ic comes from Dept. I itself, not consumers" is
hanging, as
there is no statement of what constitutes this "demand".  Does it
from Heaven?  from building another railroad track next to the
little used
railroad track right next to it?  what?"

Ah, yes, if we want to understand what governs capital
accumulation, and how, more definitely needs to be said.  We need
to know inter alia how demand for Ic is determined, and the schema
shed no light on this.   (How could they, since they permit both
simple and expanded reproduction, the difference between which
turns on the relative size of Ic?)

I meant that I don't see that anything more needs to be said in
order "to prove that Ic is not limited by the extent of the market
for consumer goods."



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST