I will not dignify Kliman's post with a response. I believe that in any
case a response would be pointless, since we evidently interpret the
English language in fundamentally different ways (e.g., with respect to the
meaning of a mathematical "proof"). He is of course free to interpret the
English language as he wishes.
Gil
>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