[OPE-L:5072] RE: Re: On "Proof" --> or "Interpretation"

From: Drewk (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2001 - 15:48:25 EST

In reply to OPE-L 5070,

I thank Paul Zarembka for his thoughtful post.

He asks how my claim of proof in Vol. II squares with a quote from
Vol. III and one from Lenin.  I do not see that the quote from
Lenin, which expresses his own view of the relationship between
productive and personal consumption, is relevant to what is or
isn't proved in the reproduction schema.  And I have to say the
same about the quote from Vol. III that addresses the same matter.
It goes to the question of Marx's intentions in developing the
reproduction schema.  But I don't see it as relevant to what is or
isn't proved in the reproduction schema themselves.  I have made a
claim about what the schemes themselves prove rather than what
Marx intended to prove or even what "Marx proved."

I don't mean to dismiss the passages.  They are interesting, but I
think their meaning is a different topic, and one for which I'm
not prepared enough at the moment.

Paul:  "And so we come to the importance of Luxemburg's
*Accumulation of Capital*.  She is addressing precisely the issue
Marx's scheme do not close the issues; in fact, with its
that c/v in both Dept. I and II stay the same under expanded
reproduction, Marx, without being fully aware of it, points to the
gap in his own analysis.  If I were using your language I would
Marx's illustrative scheme (either I or II) "proves" his own

I don't think what I wrote indicates that there's any sort of gap
in the analysis.  It simply indicates that the reproduction schema
in their basic form are not closed models.  Nothwithstanding the
lack of closure, the schemes IMO prove that, whatever may be the
limits to the growth of Ic caused by lack of demand for Ic, lack
of demand for consumer goods is not among these limits.

"But we really come to my point.  There is no "proof" here.
There is INTERPRETATION, which I expect to be demonstrated
 as Andrew contests what is said above."

Paul doesn't substantiate his contention that there's no proof.  I
understand him to be saying that he isn't trying to do so
directly, but rather wants to substantiate it through an
examination of my responses to him.  Fair enough.

Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman
Dept. of Social Sciences
Pace University
Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA
phone:  (914) 773-3968
fax:  (914) 773-3951

Home:  60 W. 76th St. #4E
New York, NY 10023 USA

"The practice of philosophy is itself theoretical.  It is the
critique that measures the individual existence by the essence,
the particular reality by the Idea."

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