Sartesian writes: > I think Jim is absolutely incorrect here, and also in regard > to Marx's works.
gee, I've never been _absolutely_ incorrect before. I'm worse than the proverbial stopped clock! > To not feel, read, see that the class struggle is the red > thread through every bit > of Vol 2 and Vol 3, and all volumes of the Theories of > Surplus Value is astounding to > me. After all, in every part of these analyses Marx is > dealing with extraction and > realization of profit, reproduction of capital as a social > relation of production and, > most importantly the dramatic impact of overproduction, i.e. > intensification of the > exploitation of labor. I didn't say otherwise. In fact, I said that the "superficial stuff" of volume III should be read in the _context of_ the discussion in volume I of capitalist exploitation. >And of course, there's that thing > called the falling rate of > profit. what version of that theory do you defend? or is it true by definition? > All of these things are manifestations of the > fundamental core of Marx's > work-- the explication of the conflict between means and > relations of production, > which is called class struggle. There's more to Marx than class struggle. There's also competition within the capitalist class (the stuff of volume III). To my mind, without this competition, the "falling rate of profit" theory would be "absolutely incorrect." > Marx's work is of a whole. The temporary divisions into > volumes and topics does > not indicate a movement away from the essential > contradiction-- social labor and > private property. you can't understand a whole (or totality) without looking at its pieces separately. Of course, you have to bring those pieces back together, as I tried to do. > Likewise in TSV, Marx's critique is social, linking the > considered political economic > theories to definite, historical, class interests. right. > Whatever contradictions we live with personally are not > amenable to pacification > through "enlightened" investment programs, etc. did anyone on pen-l say that such programs could achieve such goals? I didn't see anyone saying so. > Sure it's a > contradiction, > but why burden Marxism with the task of removing personal > moral uncertainty-- or > improving portfolio performance? the main point I read was that Marx doesn't provide guidance here. The guidance I gave, as Michael Perelman noted, was simply common sense, not something from Marx (though I doubt Marx would reject the advice). BTW, I was answering NOT as an avatar of Marx, but as a practitioner of Marxian political economy who knows a little about finance and was trying to answer the question that was asked. jd
