[ show plain text ]
One should add that it is quite innane to assume constant
values in vol 3 in which Marx finally frees his system from static
assumptions in order to study the developmental effects
not of constant values but constant revolutions in value
mainly achieved through the constant capital per unit rising less than
direct labor (v+s) per unit falls, as Engels clarifies in supplementary
comments somewhere in vol 3.
How could one possibly think a tableaux appearing in volume 3 could or
should be based on the exact assumption Marx is most interested in
relaxing? It is obvious that Bortkiewicz ripped the tableaux out of its
context without any understanding of Marx's method. Marx's Capital is a
single argument--it approaches the history, possibility and development of
capitalism through successive approximations. It makes assumptions which
it later relaxes. It can only be understood as a whole. One cannot mix and
match different parts which are developed at completely different removes
from reality.
As I begin to acquaint myself with the status of the debate over the
transformation problem, I must say that I am astounded by the lack of
systematic attention to the relation between the assumptions in vol 2 and
vol 3 even though the whole Bortkiewicz-Sweezy-Foley problem is based on
simply reconfiguring Marx's actual tableaux as a vol 2-3 hybrid as if this
can obviously be done.
It cannot. I hope the issue I am raising here is general enough for
someone to confront.
Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT