Gil has "one minor comment" on what I said about the Okishio theorem
vs. Marx: >>Marx phrased his argument under the assumption that the
rate of surplus value is held constant, but I don't read him positing
this as the economically relevant condition--rather it's a
simplifying assumption stipulated as a point of departure. <<
I guess it depends on what one means by "economically relevant",
no? Laibman, e.g., sees the constant RSV as an assumption of a
certain kind of truce in the class struggle ("class struggle
neutrality").
>> The economically relevant condition on wages would have to be
supplied by a separate story about the impact of technical changes on
labor market outcomes. ...<<
BTW, I'm one of those wierd ducks who (unlike the majority of the
Okishio literature) thinks that the capitalist accumulation process
involves more than mere technical change: it also involves investment
in fixed capital, which can have a positive impact on the demand for
labor-power just as labor-power-saving technical and institutional
change lowers the demand for labor-power.
(apologies to the fowl in the audience....)
>> In a recent paper to which Jim refers (still in submission limbo),
I establish market conditions --something like a stationary-state
competitive equilibrium in a dynamic market--which support this
(constant RSV) assumption.<<
This can make sense as a secular tendency, though as Marx points out
the RSV tends to fluctuate with the cycle (countercyclically). This
tendency is not being realized these days, as the RSV seems to be
rising. Also, the story becomes much more complicated if one brings
in considerations of unproductive labor. The Okishio theorem
abstracts from the spending of profits on the wages of unproductive
labor.
BTW, it is easy to reconcile a constant RSV, which entails wages
rising with productivity, with notions of immiseration: capitalist
accumulation, by changing the social conditions of consumption,
increases working-class needs. It's possible, though not necessarily
true, that needs outstrip real wages, implying immiseration. With
constant real wages (Okishio's assumption), this immiseration is
guaranteed. Put another way, capitalist accumulation, by creating new
needs creates a pressure which encourages workers to struggle to
break Okishio's assumption. This is another way that the dynamics of
capitalist accumulation militates against Okishio's assumption.
I also agree with critics that comparative statics exercises such as
Okishio's have very limited use, especially given the assumption that
there are no realization crises and of a neoclassical kind of
competition.
In fact, I don't find the Okishio theorem surprising at all. In a
simple single-sector model with no depreciation, the rate of profit
is r = (1 - w/q)y where q is output per worker and y is output per
unit of means of production. If w is constant and q rises (as Okishio
assumes) then r rises. There are some details in Okishio that are
vaguely interesting, but the main story can be seen in this formula.
-- Jim Devine
