Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2007 - 10:58:52 EDT

--- Riccardo Bellofiore <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT>

> Hi David,
> actually, I agree 98%. I too think that
> - "There are no contradictions or
> "inconsistences" in Marx [regarding the
> transformation]; only some incompleteness in the
> formalization of the quantitative side of the
> theory. "
Not true Riccardo! The fundamental problem with
measuring capital by labor-values is that it does not
take into account the fact that capital accrues on
compound rate and not simple rate. Unless you argue
that capital must accrue on simple rate and not
compound rate, you simply cannot make a case for Marx.
Marx did not see this problem because he got carried
away by his 'discovery' of 'surplus value'. But
Ricardo had seen this problem very clearly. Ricardo
had already developed the concept of variable and
constant capital, but crossed it out as he could see
that it was not solving the problem. But of course, he
did not develop the concept of ‘surplus value’, which
in any case does not solve the problem. Cheers, ajit sinha

Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.Èn

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT