[ show plain text ]
Paul Cockshott wrote:
> > >>On your second point, accumulation of capital of course refers to much
> > >>more than the falling rate of profit. [PZ]
> >
> > >Yes but you asked me where my theory would differ from the neo-classical.
> >
> > Then, except for units of measurement in the rate of profit, your
> >"accumulation of capital" is otherwise indistinguishable from the
> >neoclassical (and my original criticism may not be so "unfair" after all).
>
> I was not aware that the neoclassical theory had a theory of the declining
> rate of profit. It drops right out of the definitions I am using along with the
> assumption of a slowly growing or stagnant size of the proletariat - the
> standard condition in developed capitalism.
___________________Paul C, I'm sympathetic with you giving some constructive hard
time to paul Z. But don't you think that the neoclassical theory has its own
falling rate of profit theory? Diminishing marginal productivity of capital can
easily be interpreted as their version of a falling rate of profit theory. On
another note, I think Paul Z's definition of accumulation is more like what other
people call premitive accumulation. I think he thinks that there is nothing
premitive about it. The whole history of accumulation of capital has ultimately led
to what Marx talked about under premitive accumulation. The essence of accumulation
of capital for him is the so-called premitive accumulation it generates finally. Am
I wrong Paul? Cheers, ajit sinha
p.s. I'm too tired today to respond to Fred and others on the starting point of
CAPITAL. May be tomorrow. ajit
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT