====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Regarding Heinrich, what I read him implying was that Marx became skeptical of a mechanistic, mathematical theory of the falling rate of profit, that the subject required a broader analysis. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Louis Proyect <l...@panix.com> wrote: > ==============================**==============================**========== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ==============================**==============================**========== > > > Lou, > > AN implies that those of us who don’t take Heinrich’s speculations as the > new anti-gospel are exhibiting religious faith—because, apparently, we > aren’t persuaded by Heinrich’s mathematics. I might accept the accusation > as having some validity if in fact my response, or indeed, the responses of > others were based on the mathematics. They are not. They are based on the > historical record of capitalism. The agreement with the assertion that the > rate of profit tends to fall with the accumulation of the means of > production as capital, with the expulsion of labor-power from production, > is based on the actual movement of capital over a fairly substantial > period of time; in the current moment—that period of time being cited as > evidence goes back some 45 years—and...can explain the twists and turns of > capitalism in the US, and on a global scale, at the critical points in that > 45 years. Now correlation is not causation, we all know that... but after > awhile, you know evidence is evidence. Shane demonstrated the long term > tendency for a substantial period of time prior to 1968. Others have > demonstrated just such a decline in conjunction with increased “capital > investment” for other periods. Just circumstantial? well maybe, but > those are some pretty diverse, and convincing, circumstances, no? > > It may very well be that Marx’s mathematics do not prove the “law,” and > yet the law exists. There is a difference between proof and truth, not to > go all Gödel-like on this. > > It’s one thing to say as Heinrich does, that Marx was dissatisfied with > what he had written regarding capitalist expansion and the limits to that > expansion. It’s another thing to speculate, and that too is what Heinrich > does, that Marx’s dissatisfaction was driving him to reject the tendency of > the rate of profit to fall as inherent in capital accumulation. > > And it’s something else altogether to misapprehend the debates over crisis > theory and claim that in the 20th century that debate has focused on 1) the > law of the falling rate of profit and 2) that the FROP “group” has > represented” Marxist “orthodoxy”—a term usually used to identify followers > of the 2nd International, Kautsky etc. And that Heinrich does also. > > No way—the debates were usually about overproduction vs. underconsumption > . And also the debates centered around “disproportionality” which can be > traced back to Rosa’s Accumulation of Capital, Rosa’s work, I think, is > the “original” disproportionality explanation for problems of capitalist > reproduction. > > One more thing, I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m getting a little > tired of the “Engels as culprit” hymn that gets repeatedly sung by the new > anti-holy family. I mean I disagree with Engels presentation of the law of > value as meta-historical too, not to mention the “dialectic of nature,” > but the implication I keep coming across is that Engels pieced together > parts of Marx’s manuscripts to suit his, Engels’, own agenda. Maybe I’m > being unfair, but I bet I’m not the only one who smells that rat. And > Engels > > Anyway, thanks for the plug on your list, and my best to Angelus in his > translating efforts. > > > ______________________________**__________________ > Send list submissions to: > Marxism@greenhouse.economics.**utah.edu<Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu> > Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.** > utah.edu/mailman/options/**marxism/michael.perelman3%**40gmail.com<http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/michael.perelman3%40gmail.com> > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
