James Devine wrote: > > what specific conceptual contradiction are you talking about? the > "contradiction" of the so-called "transformation problem"? > > >neoclassical economists are unable to overcome the lesser epistemologic > obstacle.< > > what obstacle? how do they overcome it? > > As for "paralyzing devoutness," assuming that you're talking about the > "transformation problem," you should look at: > _Marx_and_Non-equilibrium_Economics_ (editors: Alan Freeman, Guglielmo > Carchedi; Cheltenham [England] & Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar, 1996). This > book defends Marx's approach to the transformation without any devoutness > at all. In fact, they attack the devoutness of the neoclassical and > neoclassical-Marxist belief in equilibrium. > Why didn't Marx succeed in transforming his surplus-value rate in a profit rate ? Because he had postulated that the profit issued of productivity gains (the "relative surplus-value") were globally nil. That is global accumulation were impossible, from a growing productivity. Now, what are we observing, today ? A poursuit of profit related to the lowering of the work sharing part in the product unit. The contradiction is : work is actually the only supply of wealth, but capitalist accumulation of value depends on the productivity gains. What Marx gave as a "surplus-value rate" is a relative one, and what he gave as a "relative surplus-value" is globally capitalizable. So Marx could not explain the "enhanced capital reproduction", as Rosa Luxemburg realized it (Die Akkumulation des Kapitales, 1913). That's the reason why I put forward the idea of an "epistemologic obstacle", since we are facing a conceptual inversion. As for equilibrium, I don't think it's a matter of believing or not. Equilibrium is a concept : the decretionary reference to stability. For exemple : the equilibrium can be defined as being the zero price index. But it's from the capitalist point of vue. If, on the other hand, one prefers the employment rate and the welfare state, as references of equilibrium, one has to consider that price index has been invariably positive for more than fifty years, and to explain that both equilibriums (money and growth) have become incompatible. And this is the point where we meet Rosa Luxemburg intuition... Salut et fraternite Romain Kroes P.S.- Although that discussion and your company are highly fascinating, I must move away from my computer, up to 25th august. But I'll come back on the Pen-L.
