Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 02:08:01 EST

--- Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >
> >So, for you there is no capital at a given point of
> >time for Marx? When Marx writes C, V etc in his
> >equations they are not capital?
> >______________________________
> As you know, I accept Carchedi's temporalist point
> that all
> variables should be time subscripted. So if C and V
> are capital
> at one point in time, SV and total value/price
> produced are forms
> of capital at a later point of time. Even in simple
> reproduction there are temporal lags; everything
> does not happen
> at once. Hence, things can go wrong even in simple
> reproduction

The question is do you call the time subscripted c and
v capital or not. And if not, what do you call them?
> >
> >
> >
> >No! my point is not about what science should be at
> >all. Science believs in cause-effect relationship.
> >This is their fundamental belief. Scientists
> >understand what they mean when they refer to cause
> as
> >they have devised certain standards that justifies
> >something to be a cause or not (statistical
> >probability or passing the laboratory test or what
> >ever)but those standards themselves have no grounds
> >independent of the context of the scientific
> >discourse.
> Well put indeed. Then the question what is the
> meaning of
> cause in the Sraffian theory?

What do you mean by "meaning of cause in Sraffa's
theory"? Sraffa is not propositing his own meaning of
cause. He has developed a set of mathematical
propositions given a set of methods of production and
a rule for distribution of surplus that shows that the
neoclassical economics has no foundations. But you
should keep in mind that cause has several meanings.
Most important ones are mechanical causality, which is
classically explained by the example of a lever; and
the second is the essential causality, which basically
means that the explanation of a phenomenon is sought
in its essence.
> >As religious or spiritual people understand
> >what they mean when they talk about soul and God.
> But
> >neither can be established through mathematical
> proofs
> >or logical propositions.
> >
> >
> >This whole debate has nothing to do with Michael L.
> It
> >started off because you had raised the question of
> no
> >causality in Sraffa's work. As far as the later
> >Wittgenstein is concerned, I think he will accept
> that
> >cause and effect has meaning within the context of
> >scientific discourse but it will become nonsense
> once
> >you drag it out of the scientific context and use
> it
> >in philosophical ar mathematical discourse. Cheers,
> >ajit sinha
> So given that it has no room for causality Sraffa's
> theory is a
> sub species of philosophical and mathematical
> discourse?

Sraffa's contribution is not to mathematical or
philosophical problems. It is a contribution to a
critique of economic theory. Does it reminfd you of a
title of an old book?
> Still not quite getting the point, Rakesh

Hopefully now you have got it! Cheers, ajit sinha

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 20 2003 - 00:00:00 EST