Re: (OPE-L) Re: how simple is too simple?

From: Phil Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Sat Jun 12 2004 - 16:38:43 EDT

Hi Ian

Marx is on your side:

[Capital advanced] was originally 500 and becomes 590.  Therfore,
in order that our investigation may lead to accurate results, we must
make abstraction from that portion of the value of the product in
which constant capital alone appears, and thus posit the constant
capital as zero or make c = 0.

CI ch 9 3rd page


>>  Ellipses and circles can be rigorously and consistently
>>  defined and comprehended.  "Production" without (produced)
>>  means of production posits a situation like Ajit suggested --
>>  silver pickers on a beach (where the silver can be picked up by
>>  hand without requiring any implements).  Even without a
>>  division of labour -- even Robinson Crusoe! --  required means
>>  of production.  After all, even Robinson Crusoe was a 'tool-making
>>  animal'.
>This makes no sense Jerry -- on what grounds can you maintain that a
>"circles can be rigorously and consistently defined and comprehended"
>and yet a simple production structure with labour as the only input
>cannot? There mere fact we can both comprehend silver (and k-1 other
>things) pickers on a beach makes it comprehensible. It could also
>refer to an economic experiment in the laboratory. It could also refer
>to a simple artificial market on the internet, say distributed
>processors bidding for jobs. It could also refer to k consumer
>commodities, abstracting from the indirect production processes. You
>are indulging in wordplay here.
>>  I have no problem with your attempting to present a simplified case
>>  of the MELT.  You should expect, though, that collaborative thinking
>>  -- whether on the Internet or anywhere else --  involves critical feedback
>>  (unless it is 'brainstorming' whereby participants agree to, at least
>>  initially, not be critical of each others' ideas).
>This is patronising, and doesn't add anything.
>>  In any event, the issue of how we list commodity types is quite
>>  different from a model type I was suggesting was inadequate
>>  for representing, even in simplified form, the subject matter of
>>  capitalism - a one-commodity model, like a "corn model."
>My "model" was a k-commodity model of market exchanges, if you'd been
>paying attention.
>Hrmph ... you've managed to irritate me ... for the first time on
>OPE-L. It had to happen sometime.
>Enjoy your holidays !

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 13 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT