Gerald_A_Levy wrote: > Re Rakesh's [5735]: > > Did anyone else notice the irony that shortly after > complaining that Steve et al were responsible for > the endless discussions by Marxists about the > 'transformation problem' etc and were thereby > stopping our progression onto other topics such > as the world market, Rakesh himself has re-raised > the issue of the TP in his questions in [5735] to > Gary? > > The record on OPE-L, I would assert, has not > been that the discussions on the TP have been > raised by those on the list who have charged that > Marx is logically inconsistent. Rather, it is those > who have attempted to show that Marx is logically > consistent and that the 'problem' is a non-problem > who have been the ones who have initiated some > of our more lengthy exchanges on the TP. Another > irony: one of our recent threads on the TP was > extended by Rakesh himself with his ardent > support of the Gouverneur solution. In general, > our debates have mostly focused on who had > the best solution to the TP rather than wether there is a solution to the > TP. > > All we need do to break this cycle is agree to > move on to other topics. But, if we go on to again > discuss issues associated with the TP then let > us at least not scapegoat our members who believe > that there is no legitimate solution to the TP. > > In solidarity, Jerry _______________________ I couldn't agree more with you on this, Jerry! I think the problem with Marxism is that it is unnecessarily hung up on the concept of value and its relation to labor. But once you put it as the central piece in the game, then obviously you cannot make a second step without confronting the transformation problem. Sraffa could cut through this chase by showing that profit is a non-price phenomenon without resorting to the problem of value and its relation to labor. I, in my 1996 paper, have argued that the significance of labor as a unit of measure in Marx should be sought in his concept of exploitation and not value. At that very general level my position has some affinity with Foley, Dumenil, etc., but of course I think their way of going about it is unconvincing and ultimately not very interesting--but it is a start. But people who think that the essence of *Capital* lies in its first chapter will never be able to get out of the first chapter because there is a logical break between the problematic of first chapter and the problematic of the rest of *Capital*. The problematic of pure exchange economy is not the problematic of capitalist economy--there is no production of surplus in chapter one, by the way. The emergence of surplus is a significant event for the theory, and the concepts developed for understanding a pure exchange economy will not be sufficient for the understanding of the exchange economy that produces surplus. This is the basic methodological problem that lies behind the transformation problem. Chapter 9 of *Capital* III check mates the concept of value of chapter one of volume one. Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT