Hi, Paul (Bullock), Thanks for your very thoughtful reply (OPE-L 4895). I didn't think Jerry had really put you up to it. It was a joke. I was just referring to the re-emergence of this issue after having been harangued (yes, harangued) about it interminably a few years back. "Could you please give me the reference to the reference by 'the originator'," _Capital_ III, Ch. 15, section II (Progress Pub. ed., p. 247): "Two labourers, each working 12 hours daily, cannot produce the same mass of surplus-value as 24 who work only 2 hours, even if they could live on air and hence did not have to work for themselves at all. In this respect, then, ... intensifying the degree of exploitation has certain insurmountable limits. It may, for this reason, well check the fall in the rate of profit, but cannot prevent it altogether." _Capital_ III, Ch. 24, near end (Progress Pub. ed., p. 398): "To produce the same rate of profit after the constant capital set in motion by one labourer increases ten-fold, the surplus labour-time would have to increase ten-fold, and soon the total labour-time, and finally the entire 24 hours of a day, would not suffice, even if wholly appropriated by capital." "but please try to remember that Marx didn't really believe in the man on the moon who buys without selling, reductio ad absurdum and a good sense of humour are fine in certain circumstances, but not as the basis for an hypothesis." I agree that Marx didn't really *believe* that workers could live on air. But it was not a joke, nor a mere figure of speech. It is a *limiting case* that he used to deduce -- twice -- that "the degree of exploitation has certain insurmountable limits. It may, for this reason, well check the fall in the rate of profit, but cannot prevent it altogether." Perhaps the problem is with the word "assumption." An assumption *may* be a representation of reality. That is the role assumptions play in models. It isn't the role they play in the above quotes. In these quotes, Marx assumes workers live on air in the sense of considering a limiting, hypothetical case in order to examine its implications. If that is done properly, it sheds light on real-world cases. So I disagree when you say the "live on air" reference wasn't a hypothesis (or basis for a hypothesis). Given that he deduced a conclusion, indeed a terribly important conclusion, from this limiting case, it seems obvious to me that it was a hypothesis (i.e., a hypothetical case). "That 'Marxists' , as you say, continually build models of reproduction 'without including' an armaments sector' does not mean that such sectors are not essentally part of department IIb in Marx's own schema." Actually, I think armaments and the whole of military spending are faux frais of production and thus part of Dept. I. I do not see how one can think of them as private consumption. "Capitalism - modern imperialism - is impossible without armaments, but Marx's schemas easily accomodate this fact." Sure. But I think is it fine in *some* contexts to think of Dept. I as producing just means of production (i.e., to set faux frais to the side), even though capitalism would be impossible without armaments. Again, I don't think assumptions need to reflect reality if the purpose isn't model-building. (I think the model-building methodology is terribly flawed in any case.) "You end by saying "In any case, I don't think it is good to try to constrain the free movement of thought by making it conform so stringently to appearances". This begs the whole question of method, which is central to the discussions in Opel; when and how to introduce mediating categories so that appearances can be shown to be regulated by the basic social relations of production." I don't understand this. Rather than begging the question, I thought I was addressing it directly. I don't really understand the rest, but I kind of doubt that it is an adequate description of method. It sounds like a description of synthetic method. But what about analysis? I don't think it is a good idea to put constraints on analytical inquiry. Drewk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST