From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Mon Mar 12 2007 - 14:46:26 EDT
Definitions serve lots of different purposes. Sometimes, as when we say water is H2O, we try to capture the full nature of a thing, often by giving an account of a deep structure. The definition offered below does a lot, but it doesn't do that. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: B.R.Bapuji To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] interpretations of capital and Marx It is neither wrong nor logically inconsistent if we define capital, by following Marx, as 'money that makes more money' for the following reasons: When we say 'capital', it includes both 'constant capital' and 'variable capital'. But 'constant capital' is that part of money which does not make more money (that is its value remains constant) while 'variable capital' is that part of money which makes more money (that is it creates more value than its own). This is internal aspect of capital as a whole. The external aspect or result of capital is the fact that some amount of money invested in production process makes more money at the end of the process (though realised in circulation process). We have formulae like 'm-c-m1'. Bapuji Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > Capital is not "defined" as "money that makes more money". Fred: If capital is defined as "money that makes more money" how can you ALSO claim that there is "constant capital"? > And I would argue that an advantage of my interpretation is that it > makes Marx's theory a logically consistent, without unsolved "logical > problems" that have to be dealt with. Why not give Marx the "benefit > of the doubt", instead of insisting on an interpretation for which > there remains unsolved logical problems? The same question has been asked repeatedly by Freeman and Kliman. Instead of asking "why not give Marx the benefit of the doubt?" you should have asked "Why not give *my interpretation* the benefit of the doubt?" since neither you nor Kliman nor Freeman (nor anyone else) can speak for Marx. I find the "why not give Marx the benefit of the doubt?" question to be similar to a claim that we "trust you", i.e. it embodies a presumption that Marx was the authority and that given two sets of claims (Marx was right or Marx was wrong) we should favor the interpretation that says that Marx was right. Why apply this standard to Marx alone? Why not say, for instance, that if there are two interpretations of Sraffa (one that says that Sraffa was right and the other that says that Sraffa was wrong) then we should give Sraffa "the benefit of the doubt" and favor the interpretation which says that Sraffa was right? The reason we shouldn't apply the "benefit of the doubt" argument to Marx, Sraffa, or ANYONE, is that we have to be CRITICAL OF *ALL*. *NO* authority -- Marx or anyone else -- is entitled to special, privileged treatment. In solidarity, Jerry B.R.Bapuji, Professor, Centre for Applied Linguistics & Translation Studies, University of Hyderabad, Central University post office, HYDERABAD-500 046. (Phone:91-40-23133655,23133650 or 23010161). Residence address: 76, Lake-side Colony, [End of Road opposite to Madapur Police Station],Jubilee Hills post, Hyderabad-500033. (Phone: 91-40-23117302) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT