[OPE-L:1602] Re: Temporality vs simultaneity

Paul Zarembka (ecopaulz@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
Thu, 28 Mar 1996 06:50:54 -0800

[ show plain text ]


Are you saying that Marx was assuming that the rate of exploitation is
constant in deriving the falling tendency of the rate of profit and that
this implicitly assumes assumes that the real wage rate is rising in
circumstances of the technological changes which would otherwise
cheapened labor power? And are you saying that Okishio is/was well aware
of this when he wrote his paper and that Okishio was implicitly exposing
the importance of rising wages in Marx's discussion? If so, that is
refreshing. It's also nice to hear from someone talked with Okishio
about this.

Paul Zarembka

On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, chaion lee wrote:

> When I met Okishio last summer (he visited Korea in July 1995), he
> personnaly told me that his theorem was intended to show that the
> falling tendency of profit rates would not become effective (auto-
> nomously) if workers do not make efforts to increase their real
> wage rates. His position was acceptable. In Marx's case, the falling
> tendency was derived from the conditions of (not the constant value of
> labour power as in Foley, Dumenil, etc. but) the constant rate of
> exploitation, the constant value of input materials, etc. (anti-working
> tendencies can derive from the situation where those specific conditions
> no more apply). Then, I think we have no reason to bother with Okishio's
> theorem, don't we?
> In solidarity,
> Chai-on Lee