In OPE-L 3611, Gil Skillman (wrongly) alleged that the simultaneist
Fundamental "Marxian" Theorem has been proven for real-world capitalist
economies:
"the PROOF of the Fundamental Marxian Theorem for a multi-commodity
economy requires the use of the Frobenius-Perron theorem about linear
systems, which wasn't established when Marx wrote. ... [His] stories,
besides being logically problematic, are completely unnecessary to
ESTABLISH the logical correspondence of profit and CAPITALIST
exploitation." [emphases added]
In OPE-L 3616, I pointed out that this was untrue: "the Fundamental
Marxian [sic] Theorem DOES NOT HOLD
IN ACTUAL ECONOMIES. ... under the standard (simultaneist and
dual-system) interpretation of Marx's value theory ... surplus-labor is
neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of positive profit,
EVEN IN THE SINGLE PRODUCTION CASE (i.e., no joint production)."
In OPE-L 3621, Gil DENIED that he had alleged (wrongly) that the
simultaneist Fundamental "Marxian" Theorem has been proven for real-world
capitalist economies:
"I made no commitment to any particular interpretation of value,
simultaneist, sequentialist, or otherwise, nor did I assert the universal
validity of the 'Fundamental Marxian Theorem.' I only said that claim
(1) [Capitalist profit corresponds to surplus value, which corresponds to
capitalist exploitation of labor] was tantamount to the claim of that
theorem."
This is just false. What Gil asserted, let us recall, was this:
"the PROOF of the Fundamental Marxian Theorem for a multi-commodity
economy requires the use of the Frobenius-Perron theorem about linear
systems, which wasn't established when Marx wrote. ... [His] stories,
besides being logically problematic, are completely unnecessary to
ESTABLISH the logical correspondence of profit and CAPITALIST
exploitation." [emphases added]
So Gil's denial is clearly false. He NOT "only said" the two claims are
equivalent. He also alleged (incorrectly) that the simultaneist
Fundamental "Marxian" Theorem has been proven for real-world capitalist
economies.
Gil also tried to go on the attack, by means of a truly preposterous
claim that "the logical force of Andrew's argument attacks Marx's
analysis": "if claim one is contradicted, as Andrew asserts, then it
*must be true* that Marx's aggregative equality has been violated as
well. This is an indictment of *Marx* rather than of the "simultaneist"
interpretation of Marx ... "
The reason this is preposterous is that I simply did NOT say that claim
(1) is contradicted -- and Gil damned well knows it, or should have known
it. In the post to which he was responding, I had made clear that "the
temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory is the only
existing interpretation according to which surplus-labor IS both
necessary and sufficient for positive profit" [emphasis added].
There is no such thing as claim (1) as such. Rather there are two
different claims:
(1M) Marx's (implicit) claim that surplus-labor (S) is necessary and
sufficient for profit (P).
(1S) The claim of the simultaneist F"M"T that
"surplus-labor"-as-defined-by-simultaneism (SLADBS) is necessary and
sufficient for "profit"-as-defined-by-simultaneism (PADBS).
What I have asserted -- and proved -- is not that "claim (1) is
contradicted" but that claim (1S) is contradicted. Marx's OWN claim
(1M) and his aggregate equalities emerge unscathed. What is thus
indicted are indeed only the simultaneist interpretations, which cannot
replicate Marx's result, while a non-simultaneist interpretation can and
does replicate this result.
Gil states that my analysis "is an indictment of *Marx* rather than of
the "simultaneist" interpretation of Marx, because as we know there is at
least one "simultaneist" interpretation--the so-called new solution--that
yields Marx's aggregative equalities."
Gil, you just haven't understood the issue. Please study my paper. It
is true that there's an aggregate equality (proportionality) between
"surplus-labor" and "profit" under the New Interpretation ("new
solution"). But as I state -- and prove -- in the paper, NI
"surplus-labor" is still NOT SUFFICIENT for the existence of NI "profit."
The equality (proportionality) is
PROFIT = MELT * SURPLUS-LABOR
where the
MELT = (AGGREGATE PRICE OF NET PRODUCT)/(LIVING LABOR).
Now when net outputs of some goods are negative, the aggregate price of
the net product can be *negative* at some market prices, even if
surplus-labor and living labor are positive. If that is the case, then
the MELT is *negative*. So we have *positive* surplus-labor but
*negative* profit, despite the "equality" of the two.
Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST