Fred B. Moseley wrote: > This is a reply to Ajit's latest (3900). Ajit, thanks again. > > On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote: > > > when a theory takes something as given, it either must take it as > > empirically observable in principle or must have a sense that that > > variable is determined in a theoretical space that lie outside the scope > > of the particular theory. > Fred: > No, Ajit, that is YOUR understanding of the nature of an economic theory - > that its givens must be explained OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of the theory > (i.e. that a theory is characterized by a strict division between > exogenous and exogenous variables). > > But that is not the only kind of economic theory. I think that Marx's > theory is a different kind of theory. I that think in Marx's theory, some > variables are initially taken as given and then later explained within the > theory. I have argued that constant capital and variable capital are > variables of this nature. So is m. I think this is one of the senses in > which Marx's logical method can be described as "positing the > presuppositions". The presuppositions are initially taken as given, and > then the presuppositions are posited. The variables that are initially > taken as given (C, V, and m) are not determined outside the scope of the > theory, but rather inside the theory. But not explained immediately, at > the beginning stages of the theory. Rather the explanation of these > initial givens comes at later stages of the theory. > > It seems to me that a theory that eventually explains its initial givens > from within the theory is better than a theory that does not explain its > initial givens at all. . > > So, Ajit, you cannot just decree, by methodological fiat, that the initial > givens of a theory must be explained outside the scope of a theory. There > are other types of theories that are permissible, and even seem to be > preferable. It is entirely legitimate to take m as given in Marx's > theory. ______________________ Fred, your statement that "Marx's logical method can be described as "positing the presuppositions". The presuppositions are initially taken as given, and then the presuppositions are posited" makes absolutely no sense. What you take as given or what you posit are pretty much the same thing. So i'm really not sure what is your understanding of "Marx's logical method". In any case, it seems to me that you are trying to make some kind of dialectical argument here. You see, in Hegel's dialectical logic what is posited or presupposed is later revealed as a result or conclusion of the logic because his logic is both totalizing and circular. Hegel cannot leave anything outside, given the totalizing nature of his logic, and the object of his mediation is mediation itself. Nothing of this sort is the issue in debate with us. In anycase, your statement that "I that think in Marx's theory, some variables are initially taken as given and then later explained within the theory. I have argued that constant capital and variable capital are variables of this nature. So is m." has been proven wrong by me repeatedly. In your theory you are unable to explain m either from within the theory or outside of it. All you have to say is that Marx assumes it to be given. But that is not what anybody, even the Hegelians, understand by "and then later explained within the theory". So you do not have an explanation of what your theory was supposed to explain. And that is the problem, which you don't seem to recognize. _____________________ > > Ajit: > > But your "m" is simply unknowable, though all > > your other quantitative variables depend upon its value. And this is not > > legitimate by the standard o any theory I know of. > Fred: > Several points in response: > > 1. I did not say that m is in principle unknowable. Only that we don't > yet have a theory of m. Actually, we have some ideas about how m is > determined with commodity money (as the price of production of gold), but > we have less idea about how m is determined with paper money. But I think > that such a theory of m with paper money can and should be developed. _____________________________ If you "don't yet have a theory of m" now, then you don't have a theory of anything that depends on m now either. Whether you will have a theory of something in future is not what we are debating. As far as "Actually, we have some ideas about how m is determined with commodity money (as the price of production of gold)" is concerned, as i had already shown many posts earlier, which you cut off and never responded to, that in this case you will need to know the whole of Sraffa's basic input-output system to even get that. And so your whole argument that Marx does not take physical input-output system as given would collapse. Please read through all my criticisms carefully. If you care to let all my criticisms stand in their context and respond to them all as i do with yours, we will not have to go round and round in such frustrating circles. _________________________ > > Fred: > 2. Even though the absolute magnitudes of the monetary variables depend > on m, the ratios among the monetary variables do not depend on m. And the > ratios (e.g. the rate of surplus-value, the rate of profit, etc.) are what > is important for Marx's theory. More on this point below. _______________________ This has been proven wrong by me, Gil, and Paul C. It involves elementary mathematics. So I don't understand why you keep repeating something that has been proven to be false. _______________ > Fred: > > 3. In addition, as I have emphasized in previous posts, there are the > other important qualitative conclusions of Marx's theory which also do not > depend on the determination of m, e.g. the conflict over the working > day. Whatever determines m, it remains true that a longer working day > will produce more money new-value than a shorter working day. Hence, it > follows from the labor theory of value that there is an inherent conflict > in capitalism over the length of the working day. It is not necessary to > provide a complete explanation of the determination of m in order to > conclude from the labor theory of value that there is a conflict over the > working day. More on this point below also. ____________________________ Your theory, which is unable to walk one step, has not explained any of these phenomena. And it cannot, because it first needs to stand up and walk before it could explain such things on its basis. My criticism is that your theory is a stillborn theory. It cannot explain anything. As far as Marx's theory is concerned, of course those phenomena are explained by Marx, even Steedman would not dispute that. But then your theory is not Marx's theory, you just like to repeatedly claim so. But that has no meaning in itself. _________________________ > > Fred: > In sum, Marx's theory does not become a "theory of nothing" because it > does not explain the determination of m. Marx's theory still provides an > explanation of important phenomena, even without the full determination of > m. _________________ It's true with Marx but not with your theory or your interpretation of Marx. ______________ > > Ajit: > > Your statement that "If m changes, then all the monetary > > variables change proportionally, so that the ratios among these monetary > > magnitudes remain the same." is not correct has been proven by me repeatedly > > mathematically, as well as by Gil and Paul C. All you have to do is to check > > your own equations and you will know that this claim of yours is falls. > Fred: > Ajit, I don't think you have "proven" even a single time that my statement > is incorrect. I don't remember Gil and Paul C. commenting on this > particular point either; they can speak for themselves. _____________________ I think it is absolutely legitimate on my part to feel so frustrated. Either you are not reading my responses or you simply don't care. In the end I'll have to stop repeating, and so you will have the last word! So this is the last time I'm going to prove to you that this statement of yours, which is what gives you a sense that you have got a theory, is simply wrong. Let me quote from your earlier post first: "Let my put it another way: As I have summarized several times, the basic > conclusion of Marx's theory of surplus-value is that the magnitude of > surplus-value (or dM) is PROPORTIONAL to the quantity of surplus > labor-time, with m as the FACTOR OF PROPORTIONALITY; i.e. > > S = m Ls > > = m (L - Ln) > > where Ln = V / m." Now, as you know, in your formulation, in the above three equations L, V, and supposedly the given "m" are known. So put the value of Ln in your equation 2. It gives you, S = m(L - V/m). This implies that S = (m.L - V). And so from our elementary mathematics we know that S is not proportional to m. What is so difficult about this? _________________________ > Fred: > > I have argued that MARX ASSUMED that a change of m will change all the > monetary variables proportionally, from which it follows (as a matter of > mathematical logic) that the ratios among the monetary variables (the rate > of surplus-value, etc.) will not change. I even typed out several > passages in which Marx explicitly stated both this assumption (a change of > m will change all the monetary variables proportionally) and the > conclusion derived from it (the ratios among the monetary variables will > not change). You have not responded to these passages. Instead you > repeat empty assertions. > > In order to "prove" that my statement is incorrect, you have to show > either: (1) that Marx did not assume that a change of m will change all > the monetary variables proportionally; or (2) that the conclusion (the > ratios among the monetary variables will not change) does not follow. ____________________________ I don't have to "prove" what Marx assumes or not, because Marx is not in the dock here. As far as your theory or your interpretation of Marx is concerned, you simply cannot "*assume*" that "that a change of m will change all the monetary variables proportionally" since, as I have demonstrated above, the mathematical formulation of your theory contradicts this so-called assumption. So if you think that Marx did assume this, then your interpretation must be wrong because it contradicts Marx's fundamental assumption. ___________________________ > Fred: > So far, you have done neither. Therefore, you have proved nothing about > my statement, despite your repeated assertions. ____________________ Assertions are repeated by you, as anybody can see. I have been repeatedly proving that your assertions are meaningless. ___________________ > > > > > Fred: > > > > > In addition, other conclusions that do not > > > have to do with quantitative magnitudes, but rather with important > > > qualitative phenomena of capitalist economies (e.g. conflicts over the > > > working day and the intensity of labor, inherent technological change, > > > etc.) also do not require a theory of the determination of m. > > > > _______________________ > > Ajit: > > These issues are not under dispute. Our debate is about your interpretation of > > Marx's transformation problem. And as you yourself now accept that these > > broader issues simply do not depend upon your 'monetary interpretation', you > > have yet again confirmed Steedman critique. > Fred: > Ajit, you are raising a separate question here. The question of the last > several posts has been: whether the lack of a determination of m renders > my interpretation of Marx's theory a "theory of nothing". I argue, to the > contrary, that Marx's theory can still explain these phenomena, even > without a full determination of m. You have not disputed this point, but > instead you raise a separate issue - that it is possible to explain these > phenomena by another theory. But the fact that it might be possible to > explain these phenomena by another theory does not alter the fact that > these phenomena can be explained by Marx's theory, without a full > determination of m, which is the point under dispute in the present > discussion. _____________________ I have already taken care of this point above. A stillborn theory cannot explain anything. ____________________ > Fred: > So I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to take m as given in Marx's > theory. Ajit has provided NO convincing reason why this logical procedure > is not legitimate. ____________________ If you were carefully reading my responses, you wouldn't say this, particularly with a CAPITAL NO. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > Comradely, > Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EST