My point was just that this was a task that 2d and 3d Int'l Marxism set for itself -- contrary to what Shane says, it wasn't created by von B who in fact offered a solution that works based on certain abastract and unrealistic conditions. (That solution was adopted by Sweezy in his Theory of Capitalist development.) The 2d International offered a prize for the solution in the 1890s. The 3d Int'l claimed to have one. The position Shane maintains is a creditable reply and one subsequently urged in some form or another by a number of writers, like the cantakerous Jerry Levy, but it was not that of Marxism Leninism, and my point was just that M-L failed to solve the tasks it set for itself, including that one.
--- Shane Mage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Justin wrote: > > > > > >...The Marxist-Leninists claimed to have a new > discipline, but...it > >was unable to solve the theoretical and > practicaltasks it set for > >itself >(e.g., a meaningful solution to the > transformation problem... > > The so-called "transformation problem" is a pseudo > problem. It > is based on a misunderstanding of Marxian capital > theory by a > German critic named von Bortkiewicz. According to > vB, the sum > of labor-value prices of the product for a given > period cannot be > equivalent to the sum of prices of production of > that period's > product because the capital stocks depreciated in a > given period, as > well as the individual capitals that are the > denominators for the > average rate of profit determining prices of > production, are measured > by > the prices of production in prior periods rather > than the labor-value prices > of the capital goods composing the capital stock. > vB's misunderstanding > is to treat the capital stock as a quantity of > capital goods valued > by their physical labor content, rather than as a > fund of accumulated > surplus value--even though Marx (for instance in > distinguishing > "physical," "value," and "organic" compositions of > capital) is > explicit that capital, a quantitatively determined > social > relationship, is measured as consisting of > capitalized surplus value > and absolutely not as a mass of things. Once > this misunderstanding is disposed of it is easy to > demonstrate that the > sum of prices of production must equal the sum of > labor-value prices > in any period. In my view, the hallmark of all > "vulgar economics" > (including the huge amount of it masquerading as > "Marxist") is the > treatment of capital as a mass of things rather than > as an amount > of capitalized (ie., accumulated) surplus value. > > Shane Mage > > "When we read on a printed page the doctrine of > Pythagoras that all > things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, > mystifying, even > downright silly. > > When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of > Pythagoras that all > things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently > true." (N. > Weiner) > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
