RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I thank Ken Hanley for his thoughtful and interesting post. I think we are getting somewhere. Ken: "I see that I have indeed misunderstood your remarks. However, you still seem to commit a petitio since in reply you insist that what you identify as a fallacy is such when that is part of the issue " As I understand it, a petitio principii refers to an invalid argument. I agree that if what I wrote is taken as an argument, it begs the question. But I'm not sure that I made an argument. I thought I was just asserting (without support) that the analogy exemplifies the fallacy. I didn't think an argument was required because I thought (and think) that I had already provided the argument. The fallacy is a fallacy because a premise is missing. I don't see that an analogy can refute this kind of argument. At most, it can make us suspect that there *might be* an error in the argument. Ken: "In the first sentence I was not reading "can't" as a logical "can't" but I gather that is what you intend, that there is an internal inconsistency that entails that what is said cannot be true." Yes, that was my intent. (The sentence in question is "If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right." It was part of my defense of the statement, earlier in my post, that "The people who claim(ed) to prove that Marx committed these errors and such actually just have methodological, philosophical, and other disagreements with him. They have not proven what they claim to prove -- *internal inconsistency*, i.e., that Marx does not 'make sense within [his] own framework.'") Ken: "By the way if there is simply an error in Keyne's, on a certain interpretation, the claim would surely be more accurate that what he said was not true as a matter of fact. There may not be any logical inconsistency." Doesn't it depend on the case? Some critics claim he was wrong about the way things are; others claim that the General Theory doesn't hang together on its own terms -- e.g., because one cannot coherently affirm the "classical" doctrine of labor supply while rejecting the "classical" doctrine of labor demand. Ken: "I agree that there is a sense in which if there is some other possible interpretation according to which what is said is not inconsistent this would be sufficient to disprove the claim that what Keynes or Marx or whomever said can't be true. I assume this is what "making sense" is supposed to mean." Good! Yes, by "making sense" I meant what you say, given that we're talking about "what is said" as a whole. I don't think that an interpretation which resolves an apparent inconsistency in argument A, but leaves or creates inconsistencies in arguments B, C, ... disproves a claim that a (whole) theory is internally inconsistent. Ken: I read "can't" as meaning extremely unlikely or implausible, in conflict with what seems well established. I didnt think of it as "logically impossible" which is what you seem to mean. I look at the gas gauge and it shows almost empty. That can't be right I say because I just filled it up last night. Well of course it could be. I could have had my gas stolen etc. That sort of "can't"." Yes, I agree that this is another sense of "can't," as the word is actually used. But it isn't what's meant when Marx's (or Keynes') theory is alleged to be internally inconsistent. Anyway, I see now why you thought I was referring to Keynes' claims about reality rather than to the internal inconsistency of his theory. Ken: "That being so your interpretation of my remarks as exhibiting your "fallacy" is incorrect because I am not using "can't" as you understand it." I don't see this. Your analogy disclosed that, IF one interprets "can't" as you did, what I said was in error. The analogy was evidently meant to show that I did make an error. It didn't show this because it didn't establish that your interpretation of my use of "can't" was correct. Ken: "1) It seems to me that you impose a too stringent requirement when you require that a person prove that their interpretation is correct as a precondition to claiming correctly that there is an inconsistency in what someone says and so it cant be true. Why?" Ah! You're right. I *wrote* "If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right," but I *meant* "If you claim TO PROVE that " Ken: "a) In some cases there may be universal agreement what is the correct interpretation and so proof would seem unnecessary at least until such time that someone presents an objection." This seems right to me. The point I was *trying* to make is that proof of internal inconsistency requires proof of the correctness of the interpretation under which there is internal inconsistency. (I realize there is an exception -- cases in which whether something is internally consistent is indep
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
urdum. It is > a bait and switch. (What's the Latin for bait and switch?) COMMENT: X's claim is intended to be in words. "Those who believe strongly enough in Shazzam will not be harmed etc." There are various interpretations of what X says. I interpret what is said as meaning that persons who believe (strongly) in Shazzam will not be killed in battle. But there is another interpretation ,X's, that whenever this happens it is because the belief is not strong enough. That there is this interpretation according to your view shows that my claim that X's claim can't be right, is disproven. Well it is in a logical sense. But it is not disproven in the gas tank sense of "can't I would hold. > > 2. I indicated that it was illegitimate to use one possible > interpretation of what Keynes said to conclude that s/he "can't be > right." To arrive at that conclusion, one needs to show that > there is *no* interpretation possible under which what Keynes said > is right. Nothing I wrote states or implies that the existence of > another interpretation proves that the first interpretation is > incorrect. In Ken's analogy, however, the existence of another > interpretation (according to which X's statement makes sense) > supposedly disproves his own interpretation of X. Another bait > and switch. Well this is because I wasnt thinking of "can't" as the logical "can't". But surely you are claiming that the existence of another interpretation that is consistent shows that the claim that what is said can't be true is incorrect. In my example analagously what is shown is that my claim in the gas can sense of "can't" must be incorrect. But my point is that it would seem odd to claim it is incorrect just on the ground there was an alternative interpretation that makes sense. Of course you are correct it does show this in your sense of "can't" > > 3. Nothing I wrote states or implies that the existence of > another interpretation proves that Keynes' critics are wrong about > the substantive matter. In Ken's analogy, however, the existence > of an interpretation of objective events according to which X is > not necessarily wrong about the substantive matter supposedly > disproves Ken's claim that X is wrong. Still another bait and > switch. COMMENT: You are correct but I intended no bait and switch. What appears as such is caused by my misinterpretation of "cant". > > > Andrew Kliman > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof > regarding > surplus value and profit > > > Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough > in the > power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them > when they > go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of > believers in > Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of > Shazam > claims that this is just my interpretation. There is another > interpertretation to the effect that those who were harmed did not > believe > strongly enough in Shazam. So the believer in Shazam has proved > that my > intepretation is incorrect since there is another intepretation > in which > the defender of Shazam's view makes sense ---and this disproves my > claim. > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > >> > >
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Here's why Ken Hanly's supposed analogy is ludicrous. 1. I was dealing with cases in which there are various possible interpretations of what someone said. In Ken's analogy, by assumption, there are not various possible interpretations of what someone (X) says. Rather, there are various interpretations of certain other events. This is not a reductio ad absurdum. It is a bait and switch. (What's the Latin for bait and switch?) 2. I indicated that it was illegitimate to use one possible interpretation of what Keynes said to conclude that s/he "can't be right." To arrive at that conclusion, one needs to show that there is *no* interpretation possible under which what Keynes said is right. Nothing I wrote states or implies that the existence of another interpretation proves that the first interpretation is incorrect. In Ken's analogy, however, the existence of another interpretation (according to which X's statement makes sense) supposedly disproves his own interpretation of X. Another bait and switch. 3. Nothing I wrote states or implies that the existence of another interpretation proves that Keynes' critics are wrong about the substantive matter. In Ken's analogy, however, the existence of an interpretation of objective events according to which X is not necessarily wrong about the substantive matter supposedly disproves Ken's claim that X is wrong. Still another bait and switch. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough in the power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them when they go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of believers in Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of Shazam claims that this is just my interpretation. There is another interpertretation to the effect that those who were harmed did not believe strongly enough in Shazam. So the believer in Shazam has proved that my intepretation is incorrect since there is another intepretation in which the defender of Shazam's view makes sense ---and this disproves my claim. Cheers, Ken Hanly If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, "here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc." There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense.
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
COMMENT 1 Andrew Kliman's post is a PERFECT example of the fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question. One basic form of this fallacy consists in assuming as true what is being questioned. I questioned his identification of a certain argument as fallacious by attempting to show that the argument he uses to establish it as fallacious is not valid. That was the point of the analogy. It was also meant as a reductio. In his reply Andrew claims that my remarks are a perfect example of the fallacy he pointed to. But they can only be a perfect example of that if what he pointed to is a fallacy. But that was the question that is at issue. So his reply assumes as true what is being debated. If what he says is true then I am wrong no matter whether my response perfectly exemplifies his fallacy or is more like a Mother Goose rhyme. COMMENT 2 Kliman's response does not prove that my response is a PERFECT example of the fallacy he points out. Why? Because his response is fallacious: a) because it is a petitio and b) if what Kliman points out is a fallacy, his own comments exemplify that fallacy and hence are fallacious for that reason as well. Prove 2 b) please.. Kliman interprets my remarks as an interpretation of his remarks as ludicrous. But no proof or even evidence is given for this. He certainly hasnt even begun the monumental task of showing that there is "no" interpretation under which I might be right. Since he hasnt proved this it follows that his own argument is a PERFECT example of the fallacy he points out. But if his argument is fallacious then it does not prove that my own argument is a PERFECT example of his fallacy. Cheers, Ken Hanly - > Ken Hanly's post (see below) is a PERFECT example of the fallacy I > pointed to. > > I wrote: "If you claim that something someone said can't be > right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under > which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, 'here's my > interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this > error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed > this error, that internal inconsistency, etc.' There's a missing > premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be > correct." > > Ken has interpreted my comment and has used his interpretation to > construct what he apparently thinks is an analogy. The "analogy" > discloses that, under his interpretation, what I said was in > error. Ergo, Ken suggests, I made an error. > > But this doesn't wash, because he hasn't shown that his > interpretation of my comment is correct. > > It isn't. In fact, it is ludicrous. > > > Andrew Kliman > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof > regarding > surplus value and profit > > > Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough > in the > power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them > when they > go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of > believers in > Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of > Shazam > claims that this is just my interpretation. There is another > interpertretation to the effect that those who were harmed did not > believe > strongly enough in Shazam. So the believer in Shazam has proved > that my > intepretation is incorrect since there is another intepretation > in which > the defender of Shazam's view makes sense ---and this disproves my > claim. > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > > If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have > to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. > It just doesn't wash to say, "here's my interpretation of Keynes. > Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal > inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that > internal inconsistency, etc." There's a missing premise, namely > that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to > disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some > possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense. > > >
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Ken Hanly's post (see below) is a PERFECT example of the fallacy I pointed to. I wrote: "If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, 'here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc.' There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct." Ken has interpreted my comment and has used his interpretation to construct what he apparently thinks is an analogy. The "analogy" discloses that, under his interpretation, what I said was in error. Ergo, Ken suggests, I made an error. But this doesn't wash, because he hasn't shown that his interpretation of my comment is correct. It isn't. In fact, it is ludicrous. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough in the power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them when they go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of believers in Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of Shazam claims that this is just my interpretation. There is another interpertretation to the effect that those who were harmed did not believe strongly enough in Shazam. So the believer in Shazam has proved that my intepretation is incorrect since there is another intepretation in which the defender of Shazam's view makes sense ---and this disproves my claim. Cheers, Ken Hanly If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, "here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc." There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense.
Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough in the power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them when they go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of believers in Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of Shazam claims that this is just my interpretation. There is another interpertretation to the effect that those who were harmed did not believe strongly enough in Shazam. So the believer in Shazam has proved that my intepretation is incorrect since there is another intepretation in which the defender of Shazam's view makes sense ---and this disproves my claim. Cheers, Ken Hanly If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, "here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc." There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense.
RE: RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
>If you want more specificity, consider another two-good economy. >Sector A produces 10 units of A, using 9 units of A and 1 unit of >labor. Sector B produces 3 units of B, using up 2 units of A and >1 unit of labor. So there's a positive net product of B, 3 units, >and a negative net product of A, 10 - 9 - 2 = -1 unit. Now under >the interpretation in question, the per-unit value of A is 1 and >the per-unit value of B is also 1, so the total value of the net >product is 2. Imagine that workers' wages are *very* low, so that >surplus-labor, the total value of the net product minus the value >of wages, is very close to 2. If, however, the relative price of >A in terms of B is greater than 3, then profit -- measured >simultaneously -- will be negative. So we have surplus-labor but >negative profit. Why would anyone carry out production of a good worth half as much as its inputs? What you appear to have proved here is that if workers are employed to destroy valuable items, then profit will be negative. I suppose that would be news to the analysts who covered boo.com or something, but probably not to anyone else. I'm probably being thick here, but I don't see how your assumption about the relative prices of A and B is a legitimate one here; unless the less stylised version of this argument has some compelling reason why production of B would take place under these relative prices, I'm not sure that this conclusion can be established dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
-Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 March 2002 01:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23950] Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit >. So, let's call a halt to >this. sorry; ifI could withdraw my previous reply to it I would (catching up with messages after a gruelling marketing trip) dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I agree with Carrol about the absurdity about expecting that all challenges must be answered, but I hope that the whole thread has stopped. On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:18:44PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: > > > Drewk wrote: > > > > Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: > > > > I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. > > If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. > > > > That is not how maillists work or ought to work. I've added people to my > kill file who got too insistent that their arguments should be responded > to or that others should read the articles they base their arguments on. > On a maillist one responds to the posts that one chooses to respond to, > pretty arbitrarily. Obligation of this sort belongs in the classroom. > > Carrol > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Drewk wrote: > > Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: > > I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. > If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. > That is not how maillists work or ought to work. I've added people to my kill file who got too insistent that their arguments should be responded to or that others should read the articles they base their arguments on. On a maillist one responds to the posts that one chooses to respond to, pretty arbitrarily. Obligation of this sort belongs in the classroom. Carrol
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value andprofit
> >Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx. >Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx.. > >Andrew Kliman I do not see how these identities were arrived at. As general statements, I cannot imagine anything more absurd. At the very least, it seems to me that such equations easily read as an attempt to make critical, spirited enquiry into Marx or the very attempt to develop other radical traditions engender guilt and danger, but such an attempt will doubtless backfire by turning people away from any enquiry into Marx at all. Need to unsub again for awhile. Gil, if you respond on Keynes, I'll check the archive. Rakesh
Re: Re: Marx's Proof
In a message dated Wed, 13 Mar 2002 1:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, John Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Doug, I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and > perhaps misses what might be important. > > Among other things you wrote: > > "Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what > political or intellectual progress exactly?" > > Yet this is a good question. Let me suggest some possible > answers: > > > 1. We, radicals, have little sense of how technical change >takes place in capitalist society. That is, the common >interpretation of Marx is that technical change is >labor displacing at all costs. Laibman goes as far as >to say that capitalists innovate in a "Rube Goldberg" >fashion. That is, labor replacing technical change >takes place at all costs. That is what ortho Marxism >has held for over a century. I doubt this is true >and do not impute that view to anyone, save David, in >particular. > > So what? Seems to me that anyone with this view could > easily grab hold of the idea that an alternative to > capitalism could exist side by side with a society > growing in such "Rube Goldberg" fashion. > > > 2. Within traditional approaches to Marx as well as in standard >eco thought, little if any attention is paid to "moral >depreciation". Indeed, the qualitative and quantitative >aspects of this type of depreciation disappear as one >simultaneously values inputs and outputs. Thus, in theory, >we can create situations in which a capitalist invests $100, >ends up with $20 and have a rising rate of profit. The usual >understanding of Marx's concept of valuation incorporate >this absurd possibility. > > Put simply, using Marx's concept of value, we should be able > to grasp how technical changes take place in capitalism and > what are the consequent changes in valuation. > > If we can't, we should move on to something else. I do not > feel that seeking answers to this problem is a sub for > activism nor do I find the concepts alienated. > > > > John In my opinion Marx repeatedly states that value is the amount of socially necessary labor in the production of commodites. Many understand this formula different. I accept it at face "value" because it makes sense to me. By technical changes in capital I understand this to mean technical changes in the forces of production. Marx gives a fairly good view of this process in Volume I of Capital, The General Law of capitalist accumulation, section 3 page 628. Technology changes on a continium from the dawn of the capitalist mode of production, up until this minute, reduce the amount of human labor needed in the production of the expanding world of commodities. That is to say a smaller magnitude of labor is needed to produce the same amount of commodites a previously existing magnitude of labor yielded. This affects how the total social capital is apportioned in the production process, with less of the total going to living labor in relationship to a larger magnitude being apportioned for machinery - dead labor. This impact the over all valuation of the living working class, which appears as increasingly larger sections of the population unable to sell their labor-power for enough wages to make ends meet. Melvin P
Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
>I'm not sure what the below is in response to, but briefly: Andrew, If you are going to address me, please use my name at some point. Please do not use the passive voice as Jim D in replying to one of claims. "It has been asserted that..." For example, you could have said "I'm not sure what Rakesh [or Bhandari] is responding to below, but briefly.." Devine could have said: "It is asserted *by Bhandari* that Fred's criticism of me has echoes of the young Strachey's criticism of Robinson, but this assertion is baseless." At the very least, claims should remain tied to authors for the purposes of clarity. Secondly, please do not give me orders most especially when they are opaque. We Marxists should not be in the business of bossing people around. You order me not to confuse classical equilibrium prices with the simultaneist equilibrium stationary prices. But you don't tell me what the difference is and you don't prove that Marx does not use the latter. So you have VERY OBNOXIOUSLY given me an order without clarifying what it is or why I should heed it. Thirdly, I think your point that classical equilibrium prices are not themselves a force but a resultant of forces is valuable, though I need to think about it. It seems that the whole discussion is shot through with metaphors from physics. Fourthly, I am not clear as to what classical equilibrium prices are; my reading of Ricardo does not suggest to me that he meant by them what many interpreters mean by them; my reading of Marx suggests that his price theory is much more dynamic than Ricardo's, so it is not obvious to me that Marx recognized the existence of classical equilibrium prices. Rakesh > >Marx generally thought that market prices tend to fluctuate around >equal-profit rate prices -- classical equilibrium prices. (I >would dispute your reading of the end of Vol. II and Ch. 9 of Vol. >III if I had time.) Such prices have theoretical interest to me. >They do not exert any force -- they are the outcome of the >workings of various forces. Real magnitudes determine derivative >magnitudes like averages, not v.v. > >All of this has zip to do with the "equilibrium" -- stationary -- >prices and the associated "equilibrium" profit rate of >simultaneism that we critique. Do not confuse the two. > >The latter is of no interest whatsoever. This is a very strong claim, and you give me no reasoning or no citation where the reasoning behind this very strong conclusion can be found. Rakesh > > >I have no position on the rest. I'd need to study the question >carefully. > >Andrew Kliman
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Please, if anyone wants to carry on with this discussion, let's do it off list. On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:10:13PM -0500, Drewk wrote: > Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: > > I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. > If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. > > Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx. > Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx.. > > > > > Andrew Kliman > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I don't have much energy for disputes now. A recent basketball injury has cause the loss of a wisdom tooth today. Please, I think that Mat is correct. The idea of marxists intentionally supressing marxism does not seem realistic to me. There are marxists whose marxism seems ill-founded to me and whose ideas have consequences of which I disapprove, but I cannot think of any marxist who is supressing marxism. We should drop this line. Only a few people have been involved and some valuable members have dropped off in disgust. So, let's call a halt to this. Also, the debate between Charles and Gil does not seem to be going anywhere. "Forstater, Mathew" wrote: > Drewk, you seem to think that "proof" is something everyone agrees on. > One person's proof is another's obfuscation, suppression, etc., as you > yourself admit. I don't know the details of the history of your > interaction with other points of view, so I don't know whether others > have totally ignored your "disproofs" or not. Maybe they have. My > experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually based on > methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, > and the like, so that usually, though not always, people more or less > make sense within their own framework. There are exceptions, of course. > Anyway, if these threads are intended to get people out to your sessions > at the Easterns, like the one with Gary Mongiovi presenting the Sraffian > critique of your work, and you and Alan Freeman responding, then it's > worked for me. I'll be there. Mat > > -Original Message- > From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:23914] RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value > and profit > > I agree that "Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated > attempt to "suppress" the truth." So how do we decide in a > particular case whether it *is* a suppression of the truth? (I > leave aside the issue of motives.) > > It is one thing to claim to prove error or internal inconsistency > when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one > cannot. When the alleged proofs have been disproved and one > *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of > suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not > retract the falsified "proofs" in the face of disproof, that is > clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological > attack. None of this has anything to do with "disagreement." > > Am I right or not? If not, why not? > > It is one thing to claim to that one can jettison Marx's own value > theory, and still hold that surplus-labor is the sole source of > profit, when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it > when one cannot. When the alleged proofs of this proposition have > been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an > instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When > one does not retract the falsified "proofs" in the face of > disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly > an ideological attack. Again, none of this has anything to do > with "disagreement." > > Am I right or not? If not, why not? > > Andrew Kliman > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin > Schwartz > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus > value and > profit > > > > >This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of > Marx -- > >his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what > >people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous > >to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. > > > > > >Andrew Kliman > > > > That's right, Andrew. We all know you have correctly understood > Marx, and we > grasp clearly what your perspective, I mean his perspective is, > and we know > that it id true. But because we are in league with Satan, > wesupress it. I > mean, for heaven's sake, be serious. Not all disagreement is > maliciously > motivated attempt to "suppress" the truth. I am sure that Roemer > and Gil and > Roberto (and me) do our best to understand Marx, among other > things, but > sometimes that is not good enough. With Roemer, clearly it isn't. > Gil's > another story. And moreover we may just honestly disgree both with > your > reading as toits accuracy as a
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx. Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx.. Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I'm not sure what the below is in response to, but briefly: Marx generally thought that market prices tend to fluctuate around equal-profit rate prices -- classical equilibrium prices. (I would dispute your reading of the end of Vol. II and Ch. 9 of Vol. III if I had time.) Such prices have theoretical interest to me. They do not exert any force -- they are the outcome of the workings of various forces. Real magnitudes determine derivative magnitudes like averages, not v.v. All of this has zip to do with the "equilibrium" -- stationary -- prices and the associated "equilibrium" profit rate of simultaneism that we critique. Do not confuse the two. The latter is of no interest whatsoever. I have no position on the rest. I'd need to study the question carefully. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23942] Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I shall repost the following questions (of course if John E or Manuel or Gary or Mat has answers, I would appreciate it): And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption of classical natural or equilibrium prices in his own reproduction schemes and transformation analyses? Do equilibrium prices not exert *any* force at *any* point in the course of capital accumulation or the business cycle? Are they of *no* theoretical interest *whatsoever*? Isn't it towards an equilibrium point based on the new adopted technology that the economy is moving in Schumpeter's recession phase of the cycle? Or do Andrew and Alan Freeman reject this Schumpeterian assumption just as it is rejected by Alan's father Chris Freeman, perhaps the leading economic student of science and technology in second half of the 20th century? Rakesh ps Andrew I'll copy your paper at the library since I won't be able to read it.
RE: RE: RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Mat: "I have perused a couple of your papers on the web" The published stuff is usually better in order to gain a basic understanding of the issues from the ground up. For economists who understand the technicalities of some of the other interpretations, the piece I'd recommend one reads first is "A Temporal Single-system Interpretation of Marx's Value Theory," published in ROPE 11:1, in 1999. Mat: "Pardon my slowness," I don't think you're slow at all. Mat: "but can you give me a baby explanation of the negative product issues again. When you say that 10 of A are produced and workers consume 5 and 8 are used up so that the net product is -3, I'm assuming the deficit was possible because there was an already existing stock of A, right?" There's an already existing stock in any case. If workers eat their 5 units before the 10 are produced, then the period must have started with a stock of at least 13 units, 5 + 8. Assume that it was 13 units. Then since only 10 units are produced, the end-of-period stock is 3 units less than the start of period stock. That's the negative physical surplus of A, - 3 units. Alternatively it is gross output minus consumed input minus physical wages. The economy cannot *reproduce* itself next period, using the *same* technology, on the same scale, without a *reserve* stock of at least 3 units of A. In other words, to have reproduction on the same or larger scale without technical change, the initial stock of A would have to be at least 16 units, not 13. To anticipate what might be coming down the line, the following kind of thing is quite possible. During even-numbered minutes, 10 units of A are produced, while 12 units are used up, and 15 units of B are produced, while 8 units are used up. During odd-numbered minutes, it is the opposite: 15 units of A are produced, while 8 units are used up, and 10 units of B are produced, while 12 units are used up. So EVERY minute -- always -- there's a NEGATIVE net product of one good. This is so even though over each two-minute span, 25 units of each good is produced while only 20 units is used up, and thus the economy can grow over time without drawing down stocks to zero. "But it would seem that either you don't include those three used up this period that were produced in the previous period OR you include all of the stock of A that pre-existed in your net calculation--either confine the calculation to that produced in this period or include all periods." I'm not sure I understand this. You can compute the net product (actually, physical surplus, since physical wages are also deducted) in the top example either as end-of-period stock minus start-of-period stock, or, equivalently, as gross output minus used up input minus physical wages. The basic relations are end-of-period stock = start-of-period stock - consumed input - physical wages + gross output net product = gross product - consumed input physical surplus = net product - physical wages I hope this helps. If not, catch me in Boston and I'll try again. Drewk
Re: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus valueand profit
On 2002.03.14 02:32 AM, "Rakesh Bhandari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew writes: > >> "A" physical surplus and "the" physical surplus mean exactly the >> same thing in this context. > > > ok > >> >> I do not deny, but affirm "that with rising productivity there is >> indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass >> of >> surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of >> means of production and wage goods." This is the ESSENCE of >> anti-physicalism. > > ok but then what are the consequences on accumulation from this > greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? Are > you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical > dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? I think > you have bent the stick too far in the value direction. > > > >> >> A "rough sense" is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at >> whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. > > ok. Again I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. > My knowledge of the Fundamental Marxian Theory derives from > Catephores' book. > > RB > > What is "physical surplus value"? Surplus value have three forms. Firstly money-form,secondly, commodity-form,and thirdly material. i.e. Means of production-form.
Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I shall repost the following questions (of course if John E or Manuel or Gary or Mat has answers, I would appreciate it): And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption of classical natural or equilibrium prices in his own reproduction schemes and transformation analyses? Do equilibrium prices not exert *any* force at *any* point in the course of capital accumulation or the business cycle? Are they of *no* theoretical interest *whatsoever*? Isn't it towards an equilibrium point based on the new adopted technology that the economy is moving in Schumpeter's recession phase of the cycle? Or do Andrew and Alan Freeman reject this Schumpeterian assumption just as it is rejected by Alan's father Chris Freeman, perhaps the leading economic student of science and technology in second half of the 20th century? Rakesh ps Andrew I'll copy your paper at the library since I won't be able to read it.
RE: RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Drewk, I'll have to admit I have perused a couple of your papers on the web and I'm interested in understanding your argument(s). I have looked at some of your and your colleagues stuff in the past but I have not really devoted myself to a careful study. I am always interested in anything that can help me understand Marx--and thus capitalism, as well as some other things--better. Pardon my slowness, but can you give me a baby explanation of the negative product issues again. When you say that 10 of A are produced and workers consume 5 and 8 are used up so that the net product is -3, I'm assuming the deficit was possible because there was an already existing stock of A, right? But it would seem that either you don't include those three used up this period that were produced in the previous period OR you include all of the stock of A that pre-existed in your net calculation--either confine the calculation to that produced in this period or include all periods. Again, I apologize for what probably seems like a question from an intro student, but I want to understand this point, which seems like one central to the temporal view. mat
Re: Re: Marx's Proof
I am just trying to get Marx's basic vision. Does this sound right? By c and v, I mean the money sums laid out as constant and variable capital The cost price (c+v) of each commodity drops. It gives the first moving capitalist an immediate advantage, and greater ability to all capitals to survive wherever the price level settles. Moreover, the ratio of v/c tends to drop. But this does not mean that c need rise in absolute terms per commodity; it can rise as long as v drops by more than the rise of c, which of course only says that the cost price (c+v) has to drop. This is labor saving change. If c per commodity drops--that is capital-saving change--v per commodity will tend to drop even more, so that v/c tends to drop even though the denominator is falling in absolute terms. Machines are becoming ever cheaper and more powerful. If one provisionally assumes a constant rate of surplus value, the drop in v/c in the course of accumulation requires that the rate of accumulation must be fast enough to ensure that the mass of profit rises. So say as a result of the fall in V/C the rate of profit is halved each year. If the amount of profit is to remain the same, then the total capital must double each year. This is the absolute minimum rate of accumulation: the multiplier indicating the growth of total capital must be equal to the divisor indicating the fall in the rate of profit. The accumulation of capital is made possible by the greater quantity of use values in which the diminishing flow of surplus value relative to total capital advanced is expressed. Rakesh >Doug, I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and >perhaps misses what might be important. > >Among other things you wrote: > >"Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what >political or intellectual progress exactly?" > >Yet this is a good question. Let me suggest some possible >answers: > > >1. We, radicals, have little sense of how technical change >takes place in capitalist society. That is, the common >interpretation of Marx is that technical change is >labor displacing at all costs. Laibman goes as far as >to say that capitalists innovate in a "Rube Goldberg" >fashion. That is, labor replacing technical change >takes place at all costs. That is what ortho Marxism >has held for over a century. I doubt this is true >and do not impute that view to anyone, save David, in >particular. > > So what? Seems to me that anyone with this view could > easily grab hold of the idea that an alternative to > capitalism could exist side by side with a society > growing in such "Rube Goldberg" fashion. > > >2. Within traditional approaches to Marx as well as in standard >eco thought, little if any attention is paid to "moral >depreciation". Indeed, the qualitative and quantitative >aspects of this type of depreciation disappear as one >simultaneously values inputs and outputs. Thus, in theory, >we can create situations in which a capitalist invests $100, >ends up with $20 and have a rising rate of profit. The usual >understanding of Marx's concept of valuation incorporate >this absurd possibility. > >Put simply, using Marx's concept of value, we should be able >to grasp how technical changes take place in capitalism and >what are the consequent changes in valuation. > >If we can't, we should move on to something else. I do not >feel that seeking answers to this problem is a sub for >activism nor do I find the concepts alienated. > > > >John
RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Mat Forstater wrote: "I don't see the problem with the notion of a physical surplus. The surplus product is production over and above production of the (socially and historically determined) means of subsistence. Yes, according to one interpretation of Marx, but not others. But let's stick with this. Imagine a two-good economy. During the "period," 10 units of each good is produced, workers consume 5 units of each good, and 8 units of good A (and 0 of B) are used up. Then the physical surplus of A is 10 - 8 - 5 = -3, and the physical surplus of B is 10 - 5 - 0 = 5. So there is no "the" physical surplus. There's a physical deficit of A, a physical surplus of B. "Total labor time (TLT) - necessary labor time (NLT) = surplus labor time (SLT). If TLT > NLT, SLT is positive, and there must be a physical form of the goods produced during SLT, no?" Yes and no. There will in general be surpluses of some goods and deficits of others. E.g., more cars produced than used up and consumed by workers, but less steel produced than used up. There will be negative net products of some goods "produced" during the SLT. Car workers produce a physical surplus of cars during their SLT, but a negative physical surplus of steel. Steelworkers produce a positive physical surplus of steel but a negative physical surplus of coal. Etc. So you have to look at the whole economy. But when you add it up, there's no reason why the aggregate physical surplus of anything has to be positive, especially during a short time-span -- minute, hour, day, week. If you want more specificity, consider another two-good economy. Sector A produces 10 units of A, using 9 units of A and 1 unit of labor. Sector B produces 3 units of B, using up 2 units of A and 1 unit of labor. So there's a positive net product of B, 3 units, and a negative net product of A, 10 - 9 - 2 = -1 unit. Now under the interpretation in question, the per-unit value of A is 1 and the per-unit value of B is also 1, so the total value of the net product is 2. Imagine that workers' wages are *very* low, so that surplus-labor, the total value of the net product minus the value of wages, is very close to 2. If, however, the relative price of A in terms of B is greater than 3, then profit -- measured simultaneously -- will be negative. So we have surplus-labor but negative profit. This was just a simple example for intuitive purposes. It is much more restrictive than the proof in my paper, which again, I'll be happy to send folks. Drewk
RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I appreciated Mat Forstater's post. I agree with most of what he says "Drewk, you seem to think that "proof" is something everyone agrees on." No, I actually don't, since, as you say: "My experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually based on methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, and the like, so that usually, though not always, people more or less make sense within their own framework." This is EXACTLY the point. EXACTLY. The people who claim(ed) to prove that Marx committed these errors and such actually just have methodological, philosophical, and other disagreements with him. They have not proven what they claim to prove -- *internal inconsistency*, i.e., that Marx does not "make sense within [his] own framework." Please keep in mind that all of the proofs by proponents of the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory are actually disproofs. E.g., Marx's critics say they have proven that, even without his value theory, surplus-labor can be shown to be necessary and sufficient for profit. I've disproved this. I mention this because there's a fundamental asymmetry between proofs and disproofs. One should indeed be very skeptical about claims to prove something. What's usually at issue are instead "disagreements ... based on methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, and the like." It is much more plausible that someone who claims to disprove something is right. If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, "here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc." There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense. Also, when one proves that something is necessary or impossible, the proof is valid only if it holds in all possible cases, while the presentation of even a single counterinstance is enough to disprove the claim. People understand this, but they often fail to understand an important implication: one is not permitted to make methodological choices when one constructs a proof, if doing so restricts the set of cases under consideration. For instance, Marx's critics are entitled to favor models in which all physical surpluses (or net products) of everything are always positive. Their methodological reasons for this might be good or they might be bad, but that's irrelevant. They simply cannot use these models to "prove" that even without Marx's value theory, surplus-labor can be shown to be necessary and sufficient for profit. They prove no such thing. They prove merely that surplus-labor and profit happen to coexist under a very restrictive set of circumstances. "I don't know whether others have totally ignored your "disproofs" or not." I wouldn't say "totally." But I would say there's only one individual (besides us) who has more or less forthrightly acknowledged that any of our disproofs is correct. In _Research in Political Economy_, Vol. 18 (2000), Duncan Foley wrote: I understand Freeman and Kliman to be arguing that Okishios theorem as literally stated is wrong because it is possible for the money and labor rates of profit to fall under the circumstances specified in its hypotheses. I accept their examples as establishing this possibility. But people still keep going around asserting that the Okishio theorem is true, and that it disproves Marx's original version of his law of the tendential fall in the profit rate. And certainly no one else has chosen to back Foley up. "Anyway, if these threads are intended to get people out to your sessions at the Easterns, like the one with Gary Mongiovi presenting the Sraffian critique of your work, and you and Alan Freeman responding, then it's worked for me." Actually, that wasn't my intent -- I intervened in an existing thread simply in order to correct an incorrect statement Gil Skillman made -- but I'll look forward to seeing you (again) there. Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: "I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims." I'll be happy to send you, or anyone else, an electronic copy upon request. You need to be able to read math written in MSWord's "equation editor 3." "what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods?" This is a very complex issue that I have no time to address now. "Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process?" Yes, but I've written less about the accumulation process than you may think. Refutations of the Okishio theorem and the displaying of possible profit rate paths different from the path of the "material rate of profit" don't count as analyses of the actual accumulation process, in my book. Andrew Kliman P.S. For some reason, a lot of my mail is vanishing before it hits my Inbox, so there might be posts that I haven't replied to because I haven't seen them. I've retrieved a couple from the archives already. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23918] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Andrew writes: >"A" physical surplus and "the" physical surplus mean exactly the >same thing in this context. ok > >I do not deny, but affirm "that with rising productivity there is >indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass >of >surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of >means of production and wage goods." This is the ESSENCE of >anti-physicalism. ok but then what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? I think you have bent the stick too far in the value direction. > >A "rough sense" is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at >whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. ok. Again I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. My knowledge of the Fundamental Marxian Theory derives from Catephores' book. RB
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Doug Henwood wrote: "the 'real Marx' is being suppressed by Marxists and other radicals? That's ridiculous." This is a distortion of my claim. Deal with my actual claim, which concerns the failure to acknowledge that the false proofs of internal inconsistency and error have been disproved, the repetition of the claims of internal inconsistency and error despite the disproofs, and my characterization of this as suppression. If my claim is ridiculous, it should be easy for you to disprove. Go ahead, do so. Put your money where your mouth is. "When Antonio Callari told the IWGVT that they used value theory as a substitute for politics, there wasn't a peep of reaction from the crowd. Nor was there when Bertell Ollman told them (at the same session) they didn't understand how alienated their categories were. Sad, very sad." This mischaracterizes what was said. Neither spoke a negative word about the IWGVT. I largely agreed with Ollman's comments, which dealt with the way economists in general construe Marx. You may despise my politics, but you can't say that I use value theory as a substitute for it. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Drewk wrote: >The silence about this issue is deafening. > >What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to >listen to the silence. Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Doug
Re: Marx's Proof
Doug, I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and perhaps misses what might be important. Among other things you wrote: "Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what political or intellectual progress exactly?" Yet this is a good question. Let me suggest some possible answers: 1. We, radicals, have little sense of how technical change takes place in capitalist society. That is, the common interpretation of Marx is that technical change is labor displacing at all costs. Laibman goes as far as to say that capitalists innovate in a "Rube Goldberg" fashion. That is, labor replacing technical change takes place at all costs. That is what ortho Marxism has held for over a century. I doubt this is true and do not impute that view to anyone, save David, in particular. So what? Seems to me that anyone with this view could easily grab hold of the idea that an alternative to capitalism could exist side by side with a society growing in such "Rube Goldberg" fashion. 2. Within traditional approaches to Marx as well as in standard eco thought, little if any attention is paid to "moral depreciation". Indeed, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this type of depreciation disappear as one simultaneously values inputs and outputs. Thus, in theory, we can create situations in which a capitalist invests $100, ends up with $20 and have a rising rate of profit. The usual understanding of Marx's concept of valuation incorporate this absurd possibility. Put simply, using Marx's concept of value, we should be able to grasp how technical changes take place in capitalism and what are the consequent changes in valuation. If we can't, we should move on to something else. I do not feel that seeking answers to this problem is a sub for activism nor do I find the concepts alienated. John
RE: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I've been suppressed this way for years, so I can identify. --mbs > What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to > listen to the silence. > Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
I don't see the problem with the notion of a physical surplus. The surplus product is production over and above production of the (socially and historically determined) means of subsistence. My understanding is that the time required to produce the means of subsistence is necessary labor time. Total labor time (TLT) - necessary labor time (NLT) = surplus labor time (SLT). If TLT > NLT, SLT is positive, and there must be a physical form of the goods produced during SLT, no? There is another sense in which I might agree with you, but that would only hold if we also rejected the notion of "surplus labor time" as well. But if we accept SLT, then it is hard for me to imagine how there is no physical surplus product. But I might be convinced. >I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the >real world.
RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Drewk, you seem to think that "proof" is something everyone agrees on. One person's proof is another's obfuscation, suppression, etc., as you yourself admit. I don't know the details of the history of your interaction with other points of view, so I don't know whether others have totally ignored your "disproofs" or not. Maybe they have. My experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually based on methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, and the like, so that usually, though not always, people more or less make sense within their own framework. There are exceptions, of course. Anyway, if these threads are intended to get people out to your sessions at the Easterns, like the one with Gary Mongiovi presenting the Sraffian critique of your work, and you and Alan Freeman responding, then it's worked for me. I'll be there. Mat -Original Message- From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23914] RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit I agree that "Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to "suppress" the truth." So how do we decide in a particular case whether it *is* a suppression of the truth? (I leave aside the issue of motives.) It is one thing to claim to prove error or internal inconsistency when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified "proofs" in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. None of this has anything to do with "disagreement." Am I right or not? If not, why not? It is one thing to claim to that one can jettison Marx's own value theory, and still hold that surplus-labor is the sole source of profit, when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs of this proposition have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified "proofs" in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. Again, none of this has anything to do with "disagreement." Am I right or not? If not, why not? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Schwartz Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit > >This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- >his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what >people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous >to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. > > >Andrew Kliman > That's right, Andrew. We all know you have correctly understood Marx, and we grasp clearly what your perspective, I mean his perspective is, and we know that it id true. But because we are in league with Satan, wesupress it. I mean, for heaven's sake, be serious. Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to "suppress" the truth. I am sure that Roemer and Gil and Roberto (and me) do our best to understand Marx, among other things, but sometimes that is not good enough. With Roemer, clearly it isn't. Gil's another story. And moreover we may just honestly disgree both with your reading as toits accuracy as a reading of Marx, and as to its adequacy to the world. We can do these things without "suppressing" anything. Roemer et al would be delighted to have Marx's view applied, also explained. Of course we still might disagree. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Andrew writes: >"A" physical surplus and "the" physical surplus mean exactly the >same thing in this context. ok > >I do not deny, but affirm "that with rising productivity there is >indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass >of >surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of >means of production and wage goods." This is the ESSENCE of >anti-physicalism. ok but then what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? I think you have bent the stick too far in the value direction. > >A "rough sense" is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at >whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. ok. Again I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. My knowledge of the Fundamental Marxian Theory derives from Catephores' book. RB
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
"A" physical surplus and "the" physical surplus mean exactly the same thing in this context. I do not deny, but affirm "that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass of surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods." This is the ESSENCE of anti-physicalism. A "rough sense" is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23911] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit >I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the >real world. ok Andrew you deny the existence of A physical surplus. > >The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical >things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some, >deficits of others. There cannot be any "the" physical surplus. now you deny the existence of THE physical surplus. Granted there is not a single dimension in which this physical surplus can be expressed. Granted that with technical progress--say computers--it would be difficult for example to determine how many more computer means of production in which the surplus value is embodied. But I think it's a mistake to deny that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that the mass of surplus value even if it falls falls relative to the advanced capital is in fact being expressed in a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods, even if we have no precise measure for that physical quantity. If you deny this, you miss a crucial source of the elasticity and explosiveness of accumulation. My criticism of the TSS school again is that it is anti physicalist. And again here is Marx on the matter: Here is an example of Marx's ability to understand the surplus in both its aspects: ...the development of labour productivity contributes to an increase in the existing capital value, since it increases the mass and diversity of use values in which the same exchange value is represented, and which form the material substratum, the objective elements of this capital, the substantial objects of which constant capital consists directly and variable capital at least indirectly. The same capital and the same labour produce more things that can be transformed into capital, quite apart from the exchange value. These things can serve to absorb additional labour, and thus additional surplus labour also, and can in this way form additional capital. The mass of labour that capital can command does not depend on the its value but rather on the mass of raw and ancillary materials, of machinery and elements of fixed capital, and of means of subsistence, out of which it is composed, whatever their value may be. SINCE THE MASS OF LABOUR APPLIED THUS GROWS, AND THE MASS OF SURPLUS LABOUR WITH IT, THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL REPRODUCED AND THE SURPLUS VALUE NEWLY ADDED TO IT GROWS AS WELL. Capital 3, p. 356-7. vintage Rakesh
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
The issue, Michael, has nothing to do with differing about what Marx said. It has to do with false PROOFS that what he said are logically incoherent, in error, etc. Those false proofs have been disproved. When the disproofs are not acknowledged, when the historical record is not corrected, when the allegations of error and internal inconsistency continue even after the alleged proofs have been disproved, then is that not suppression? If not, how would you explain it? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23908] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that does not mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example, Justin knows that I strongly disagree with his reading of Marx, but I do not dream that he is trying to suppress Marx. Your accusation could never be proven, but only asserted. And the repetitive assertion of suppression serves no positive purpose. On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:36:51AM -0500, Drewk wrote: > Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > > "Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor > theory > of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex > capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it > shouldn't > even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. > This > is not something serious scholars do, it is something > propagandists, > hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do." > > > This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- > his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what > people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous > to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. > > > Andrew Kliman > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: marx's proof re garding surplusvalue and profit
I appreciate Manuel Resende's post. Someone is dealing with the issue instead of diverting. Good! Manuel highlights a key issue that I had not: "a bundle of commodities so *ingeniously arranged* that it always corresponds to the weighing of each component in the product" (my emphasis). Exactly. This "standard commodity" is a facile trick, having nothing to do with real-world conditions, so the theorems that apply to it have no bearing whatever on what takes place in the real world. They don't apply. Likewise with the attempts to prove that one doesn't need Marx's value theory in order to hold that exploitation is the sole source of profit -- they're all based on ingeniously arranging an imaginary economy so that there's never a physical deficit or negative physical net product of anything. This has nothing to do with real-world conditions, so the theorems don't apply to the real world. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Resende Manuel Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23907] Re:Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof re garding surplusvalue and profit Drewk wrote: >The silence about this issue is deafening. > >What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to >listen to the silence. Doug wrote: >Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be >living under socialism by now? Dear Doug: By your reaction, you are proving Drewk right. And that is not funny. Manuel PS: In fact the important point in Drewk's message was that you can't define *a* physical surplus. How do you measure it? In tons? In litres? In a bundle of commodities so ingeniously arranged that it always corresponds to the weighing of each component in the product? No, definitely you can't add pears and apples. Drewk was not calling for revolution, was he?
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I agree that "Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to "suppress" the truth." So how do we decide in a particular case whether it *is* a suppression of the truth? (I leave aside the issue of motives.) It is one thing to claim to prove error or internal inconsistency when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified "proofs" in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. None of this has anything to do with "disagreement." Am I right or not? If not, why not? It is one thing to claim to that one can jettison Marx's own value theory, and still hold that surplus-labor is the sole source of profit, when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs of this proposition have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified "proofs" in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. Again, none of this has anything to do with "disagreement." Am I right or not? If not, why not? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Schwartz Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit > >This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- >his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what >people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous >to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. > > >Andrew Kliman > That's right, Andrew. We all know you have correctly understood Marx, and we grasp clearly what your perspective, I mean his perspective is, and we know that it id true. But because we are in league with Satan, wesupress it. I mean, for heaven's sake, be serious. Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to "suppress" the truth. I am sure that Roemer and Gil and Roberto (and me) do our best to understand Marx, among other things, but sometimes that is not good enough. With Roemer, clearly it isn't. Gil's another story. And moreover we may just honestly disgree both with your reading as toits accuracy as a reading of Marx, and as to its adequacy to the world. We can do these things without "suppressing" anything. Roemer et al would be delighted to have Marx's view applied, also explained. Of course we still might disagree. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I don't deal in counterfactuals. Instead of diverting the issue, why not deal with it? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Drewk wrote: >The silence about this issue is deafening. > >What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to >listen to the silence. Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Doug
Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
>I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the >real world. ok Andrew you deny the existence of A physical surplus. > >The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical >things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some, >deficits of others. There cannot be any "the" physical surplus. now you deny the existence of THE physical surplus. Granted there is not a single dimension in which this physical surplus can be expressed. Granted that with technical progress--say computers--it would be difficult for example to determine how many more computer means of production in which the surplus value is embodied. But I think it's a mistake to deny that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that the mass of surplus value even if it falls falls relative to the advanced capital is in fact being expressed in a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods, even if we have no precise measure for that physical quantity. If you deny this, you miss a crucial source of the elasticity and explosiveness of accumulation. My criticism of the TSS school again is that it is anti physicalist. And again here is Marx on the matter: Here is an example of Marx's ability to understand the surplus in both its aspects: ...the development of labour productivity contributes to an increase in the existing capital value, since it increases the mass and diversity of use values in which the same exchange value is represented, and which form the material substratum, the objective elements of this capital, the substantial objects of which constant capital consists directly and variable capital at least indirectly. The same capital and the same labour produce more things that can be transformed into capital, quite apart from the exchange value. These things can serve to absorb additional labour, and thus additional surplus labour also, and can in this way form additional capital. The mass of labour that capital can command does not depend on the its value but rather on the mass of raw and ancillary materials, of machinery and elements of fixed capital, and of means of subsistence, out of which it is composed, whatever their value may be. SINCE THE MASS OF LABOUR APPLIED THUS GROWS, AND THE MASS OF SURPLUS LABOUR WITH IT, THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL REPRODUCED AND THE SURPLUS VALUE NEWLY ADDED TO IT GROWS AS WELL. Capital 3, p. 356-7. vintage Rakesh
Re: Re:Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof re gardingsurplusvalue and profit
Resende Manuel wrote: >Drewk wrote: > >>The silence about this issue is deafening. >> >>What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to >>listen to the silence. > >Doug wrote: >>Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be >>living under socialism by now? > >Dear Doug: >By your reaction, you are proving Drewk right. And that is not funny. I forgot, PEN-L isn't the place for humor. Ok, I'll lay it out. Proving him right? That the 'real Marx' is being suppressed by Marxists and other radicals? That's ridiculous. Marx has been suppressed by anti-Marxists, but by the RRPE edit board? That's beyond ridiculous, that's delusional. And what really are the consequences? Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what political or intellectual progress exactly? When Antonio Callari told the IWGVT that they used value theory as a substitute for politics, there wasn't a peep of reaction from the crowd. Nor was there when Bertell Ollman told them (at the same session) they didn't understand how alienated their categories were. Sad, very sad. Doug
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that does not mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example, Justin knows that I strongly disagree with his reading of Marx, but I do not dream that he is trying to suppress Marx. Your accusation could never be proven, but only asserted. And the repetitive assertion of suppression serves no positive purpose. On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:36:51AM -0500, Drewk wrote: > Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > > "Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor > theory > of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex > capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it > shouldn't > even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. > This > is not something serious scholars do, it is something > propagandists, > hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do." > > > This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- > his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what > people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous > to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. > > > Andrew Kliman > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re:Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Drewk wrote: >The silence about this issue is deafening. > >What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to >listen to the silence. Doug wrote: >Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be >living under socialism by now? Dear Doug: By your reaction, you are proving Drewk right. And that is not funny. Manuel PS: In fact the important point in Drewk's message was that you can't define *a* physical surplus. How do you measure it? In tons? In litres? In a bundle of commodities so ingeniously arranged that it always corresponds to the weighing of each component in the product? No, definitely you can't add pears and apples. Drewk was not calling for revolution, was he?
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
> >This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- >his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what >people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous >to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. > > >Andrew Kliman > That's right, Andrew. We all know you have correctly understood Marx, and we grasp clearly what your perspective, I mean his perspective is, and we know that it id true. But because we are in league with Satan, wesupress it. I mean, for heaven's sake, be serious. Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to "suppress" the truth. I am sure that Roemer and Gil and Roberto (and me) do our best to understand Marx, among other things, but sometimes that is not good enough. With Roemer, clearly it isn't. Gil's another story. And moreover we may just honestly disgree both with your reading as toits accuracy as a reading of Marx, and as to its adequacy to the world. We can do these things without "suppressing" anything. Roemer et al would be delighted to have Marx's view applied, also explained. Of course we still might disagree. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Drewk wrote: >The silence about this issue is deafening. > >What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to >listen to the silence. Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Doug
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: "Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor theory of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it shouldn't even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. This is not something serious scholars do, it is something propagandists, hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do." This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the real world. The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some, deficits of others. There cannot be any "the" physical surplus. The fake attempts to show that surplus-labor is necessary and sufficient for profit *under simultaneous valuation* all fail because of precisely this phenomenon. To be precise, I actually have proved "only" that all of the simultaneist interpretations of Marx -- specifically, simultaneist definitions of profit and surplus-labor -- imply that surplus-labor is neither necessary nor sufficient for profit. I have not claimed to prove that "the assumption of simultaneous valuation *logically* precludes one from asserting that surplus labor is a necessary and sufficient condition for positive profit." The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Andrew Kliman >Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for >both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does >not follow from this that surplus value has a "role" in the creation of >profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role" >in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that >"value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits >depend on what happens in the sphere of value." > >Gil
Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
>Michael writes: > >>One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value. >>Marx did offer one simple "proof" of the role of surplus value in the >>creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a >>whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed, >>profits would be impossible. > >Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for >both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does >not follow from this that surplus value has a "role" in the creation of >profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role" >in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that >"value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits >depend on what happens in the sphere of value." > >Gil I have not read Andrew's paper, but it would be nice to be able to assess his provocative claim that the assumption of simultaneous valuation *logically* precludes one from asserting that surplus labor is a necessary and sufficient condition for positive profit. Andrew seems to have a good taste for difficult, important and in this case fundamental problems in the so called modern interpretation of Marx It would be helpful, I believe, if we could discuss as topics in the history of economic thought (a) the idea of the surplus (I would like to defend Marx's unappreciated idea, recovered by Grossmann, that it has two forms--a value form and a use value form, one the product of abstract, general homogenous labor and the other the product of concrete labor; Marx, who was after Babbage perhaps the greatest 19th century economic student of science and technology, NEVER says that changes in the use value quantity of physical surplus are conditioned solely on changes in the surplus quantity of abstract homogeneous, general social labor time ) and (b) the methodology of comparative statics, in particular its working assumption of simultaneous valuation. For topic a, there is a good, introductory discussion in Peter Lichtenstein's An introduction to post-Keynesian and Marxian theories of value and price though I think he misses entirely Marx's discovery of the dual form of the surplus. And the existence of two surpluses comes up in Andrew and Freeman's work which studies the relationship between surplus *value* and the *physical* surplus. I have offered a criticism of their treatment. I do not read them however to be denying the existence of a physical surplus but rather to be demonstrating that the attempt to calculate the profit rate based soley on the physical surplus (as well as a fixed distributional parameter) necessarily presupposes the dubious simultaneous assumtion of input=output prices and that such an assumption is at odds with both Marx dynamics vision and more importantly the dynamics of capital accumulation. And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption of classical natural or equilibrium prices in his own reproduction schemes and transformation analyses? Do equilibrium prices not exert *any* force at *any* point in the course of capital accumulation or the business cycle? Are they of *no* theoretical interest *whatsoever*? Isn't it towards an equilibrium point based on the new adopted technology that the economy is moving in Schumpeter's recession phase of the cycle? Or do Andrew and Alan Freeman reject this Schumpeterian assumption just as it is rejected by Alan's father Chris Freeman, perhaps the leading economic student of science and technology in second half of the 20th century? What would be a good introductory treatment to problem (b)? Aside from logical claims, I thought Michael's (as well as Shane's) point was not that the labor theory of value is provable or deducible but rather that it is a reasonable working hypothesis which can be applied on the basis of the categories developed out of it to the empirical analysis of capitalist dynamics (Shane's dissertation) and in particular to the problems of capitalist crisis (Michael's qualitative value theory). John E has added--and I was hoping for good replies--that it provides the best basis for aggregation and the analysis of totalities as well. Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor theory of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it shouldn't even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. This is not something serious scholars do, it is something propagandists, hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do. And so on. Rakesh
Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Charles, you write > >CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you >reiterate it ? Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a >necessary condition for profit ? Marx makes surplus value part of the >definition of profit. > First things first: where does Marx make surplus value part of his definition of profit? > > It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role" >in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that >"value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits >depend on what happens in the sphere of value." > >^^^ > >CB: Is that "does not follow..." ? Yes Gil
RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
All of the interpretations of Marx's value theory in which inputs and outputs are valued (priced) simultaneously imply that surplus-labor is *neither* necessary nor sufficient for positive profit. This is proved for even for economies without joint production, that are able to reproduce themselves over time, in Andrew J. Kliman, "Simultaneous Valuation vs the Exploitation Theory of Profit," _Capital and Class_ 73, Spring 2001. So there are lots of people who do dispute "that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for ... the existence of profit," by virtue of adhering to the interpretations they hold. Andrew Kliman P.S. I hope to say more about this and related matters in a week or two, but I thought it necessary (and sufficient) to make this factual correction here. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gil Skillman Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23879] Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Michael writes: >One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value. >Marx did offer one simple "proof" of the role of surplus value in the >creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a >whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed, >profits would be impossible. Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a "role" in the creation of profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role" in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that "value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value." Gil
Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Michael writes: >One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value. >Marx did offer one simple "proof" of the role of surplus value in the >creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a >whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed, >profits would be impossible. Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a "role" in the creation of profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role" in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that "value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value." Gil
