[OPE-L:5073] Re: On "Proof" --> or "Interpretation"

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2001 - 21:56:51 EST

"Drewk" <Andrew_Kliman@msn.com> said, on 02/25/01:

>...  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.

Andrew is saying that growth of Ic is indetermined in the scheme in Volume
II -- the model is not closed.   Isn't this saying that there are more
unknowns than equations?

I cite Marx in Volume III in order to close the model: 'constant capital
is never produced for its own sake but solely because more of it is needed
in spheres of production whose products go into individual consumption'. 
An equation is added which makes Ic a function of demand for consumer

Andrew replies (actually in an earlier passage in the same posting):  
>...I don't see it [the quote from Vol. III]
>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."

In other words, Andrew replies: 
Please wipe out that additional equation; it doesn't belong in our
discussion (whether Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, or I introduce it).

Andrew achieves indeterminacy by suppressing an equation (rather than
arguing against the accuracy of the equation).  I suppose one can do this,
but how such a suppression becomes "proof" is a story I am unable to
construct, except in the form 
 (1) "all humans float" [growth of Dept. I is not limited by Dept. II]; 
 (2): "the Earth spins" [Dept. II]; 
 (3): "force of gravity is 32 ft/sec/sec" [Volume III's passage]; 
 (4) "Erase" (3); ergo, 
 (5) "all human float" [growth of Dept. I is not limited by Dept. II].  

Surely it leaves an emptiness for all kinds of mischief -- like claiminig
profitability for building a second railroad track next to the little-used
first and ensuring some traffic on the first.  (Bill Clinton seems to be
using such a tactic in his 'pardon' escapade.)  

I am reminded of Luxemburg saying of Otto Bauer that his own, distinct
"demonstration" was a "swindle".  But I don't think Andrew is conscious of
this as a possibility.

Thanks, Andrew, for the engagement on this, whether or not we are at an

Paul Z.

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