Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?

Date: Mon Mar 12 2007 - 05:38:22 EDT

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?
From:    "Riccardo Bellofiore" <>
Date:    Mon, March 12, 2007 3:39 am

At 14:05 -0800 11-03-2007, Ian Wright wrote:
>>You repeat the same error of Solow or Samuelson. Sraffa's thinking
>>is independent of the static/dynamic dichotomy (btw, I think you
>>mean "stationary" versus qualitative capitalist development.
>I don't agree with this point Riccardo. Sraffa's system is half an
>equilibrium system. Sraffians cannot agree whether his theory is about
>self-replacing equilibrium, or a novel event describing the production
>of surplus yet to be distributed (note the absence of the real
>distribution of income as given data in PCMC). In some respects it is
>a failed attempt to get some kind of dynamic analysis from linear
>algebra. Sraffa's thinking is not independent of the static/dynamic
>issue, it falls between it. The tools of linear algebra, which Sraffa
>employed, are inherently static.

I think we should start distinguishing: Sraffa, the Sraffists, and
the Sraffians (as with Marx, Marxists, Marxians). And there are many
conflicting Sraffists, and Sraffians.

However, likely all three would (rightly) strongly object to your
labelling his model as "half-equilibrium" system.

It is a model of determination of (re)production prices, "after the
harvest", and before the market, allowing for the reproduction of the
inputs and respecting a given distribitutive rule.

With no hypothesis about returns.

We should also distinguishing static/dynamic (making formally
explicit time) and stationary, quantitative growth/evolutionary,
qualitative development.

Whatever the formal tools.

What do you mean by "novel event"?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT