re 4393 > >In other words, Keynesians interpreted Keynes to be saying something which >was true in disequilibrium, but which could not be true in equilibrium. > >In fact, I and many other post Keynesians argue that this was wrong--Keynes >was actually pointing out that the initial proposition that the sum of all >excess demands was zero was itself false. > >Why this diversion? Because the way I interpret the way you portray Marx, >you appear to be saying that Marx was a disequilibrium theorist whose >propositions may be false in equilibrium, but are true in disequilibrium. > >In my opinion, Marx's views are true in equilibrium and in >disequilibrium--but the way I read Marx, of course, invalidates the labor >theory of value. Steve, since i think capital is never in equilibrium, it would not restrict Marx's theory if it assumed that capital has to be in disequilbrium for its results to hold. The only "equilibrium" capital knows is a ratio of surplus labor in necessary labor in the exploitative labor process which allows accumulation to proceed and self correct over time its perpetual disproportionalities. General crises, as opposed to the disequilibrium of everyday capital accumulation, result from a "disproportionality" in the ratio of necessary to surplus labor in the production process which from capital's perspective diminishes the flow of surplus value needed for further accumulation only by means of which can capital effectively overcome its endemic partial crises and inherent disequilibrium (see Mattick, 1981). all the best, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST