[ show plain text ]
Paul Z's paper has a most fascinating analysis of the problem of pinning
down just what capital accumulation is. really liked the reference to the
great Richard Jones..
> Actually, I think Rosdolsky may have an even clearer formulation of the
> criticism of Bauer than Luxemburg, altho both are making the same point.
> Thus, Rosdolsky notes that Marx "wanted to use these schemes to show how
> the antinomy of use-value and exchange-value can be, and is, resolved at
> the social level. However, this can only be shown if the industries
> making production-goods and consumption-goods are considered as completely
> autonomous departments..." (p. 499) Moving a number 4666 between
> departments, without accounting for issues of use-values, is playing a
> game, a "swindle" (Luxemburg).
Yes, I reread Rosdolsky this morning, and was struck by just this passage
as well--it's in part what I had in mind when arguing with Ajit over the
relevance of ch I, vol I's analysis of the dual nature of labor for Marx's
theory as a whole. As Rosdolsky points out, in the reproduction schemes we
see in full force the contradiction between value and use value, abstract
and concrete labor. These contradictions in the reproduction process
vindicates all that tedious analysis of the commodity form in that chapter
Ajit argues is governed by a Walrasian problematic. But is this an early
form of material immobilities that interfere with a traverse as discussed
later by Hicks, Lowe and others?
I don't have Howard and King in front of me. But as they note, didn't
Bauer point out that excess surplus value in dept 2 could be deposited in
a bank and lent to dept I to finance the expansion needed for
equilibrium--that is, dept 2 doesn't itself have to produce additional
fixed capital. Does Rosdolsky's point really hold?
More later. Will have to relook at Bauer's reply to Luxemburg, as
summarized by Howard and King.
I think Paolo Cipolla's objection to my understanding of the necessary
overproduction of fixed and circulating capital in even simple
reproduction is quite strong. I am not quite sure what Marx is trying to
demonstrate here--the discussion is confusing, no? Mattick does draw
attention to this end of section 11 of chapter 20 as well. So I eagerly
await your comments on this as well.
Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:42 EDT