I was disappointed and somewhat flabbergasted by Andrew K's [OPE-L:4910]. Andrew K accuses Fred of developing "immunizing strategies". My response to this charge, only as it involves the issues associated with Fred's [OPE-L:4909], is as follows: A) Andrew has evaded responding to the following VERY CLEAR quote from *Marx* (with Fred's EMPHASIS): 1) re causes for changes in the POP > For example, from Chapter 12 of Volume 3 (pp. 307-08): > > "The price of production of a commodity CAN VARY FOR ONLY TWO REASONS: > > (1) A CHANGE IN THE GENERAL RATE OF PROFIT. This is possible only if the > average rate of surplus-value itself alters, or, given an average rate of > surplus-value, the ratio between the sum of surplus-value appropriated and > the total social capital advanced. > > In so far as the change in the rate of surplus-value does not rest on the > depression of wages below their normal level, or a rise above this - and > movements like this are never more than oscillations - it can occur only > because the value of labor-power has either fallen or risen; BOTH OF THESE > ARE IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT A CHANGE IN THE PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR of that labor > that produces the means of subsistence, i.e. WITHOUT A CHANGE IN VALUE of > the commodities that are consumed by the worker. > > Alternatively, there may be a change in the ratio between the sum of > surplus-value appropriated and the total social capital advanced... If > the same labor sets more constant capital in motion, it has become more > productive, and vice versa. Thus A CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE > PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR AND A CHANGE MUST HAVE OCCURRED IN THE VALUE of > certain commodities... > > (2) The general rate of profit remains unaltered. In this case the > production price of a commodity can change only because ITS VALUE HAS > ALTERED; because MORE OR LESS LABOR IS REQUIRED for its actual > reproduction, whether because of a CHANGE IN THE PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR > that produces the commodity in its final form, or in that of the labor > producing those commodities that go towards producing it. The price of > production of cotton yarn may fall either because raw cotton is produced > more cheaply, or because the work of spinning has become more productive > as a result of better machinery... > > ALL CHANGES IN THE PRICE OF PRODUCTION OF A COMMODITY CAN BE ULTIMATELY > REDUCED TO A CHANGE IN VALUE ..." This seems pretty clear to me. Does it seem so to others? 2) re Vol 3, Ch 6 In his diatribe against levels of abstraction, Andrew has not directly confronted the following VERY EXPLICIT quote from *Marx* from that chapter: > "The phenomena under investigation in this chapter assume for their full > development the credit system and competition on the world market, the > latter being the very basis and living atmosphere of the capitalist mode > of production. These CONCRETE forms of capitalist mode of production, > however, can be comprehensively depicted only after the general nature of > capital is understood; it is therefore OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS WORK to > present them - they belong to a possible continuation. Yet the phenomena > listed in the title to this section [revaluation and devaluation of > capital; release and tying up of capital] can still be discussed here in > broad lines." If you have a disagreement with this quote, confront what Marx wrote rather than making smoke. Andrew's last post reminds me of the old naval strategy of making smoke. Yet, curiously, it was also transparently obvious that he was evading directly responding to Fred. Is there, therefore, any reason why we should not conclude that Fred has carried the burden of proof on this point and that Andrew's bold assertions have not been maintained? If this were a tennis match would we therefore say "game, set and match to Fred"? This is not an unreasonable conclusion, after all, since Andrew has -- in effect -- resigned from the tournament. Is it not unreasonable to hold Andrew to the same standard that he has demanded of Fred: "PUT UP OR SHUT UP" (emphasis in original, JL)? Unlike Andrew (and in sympathy with Fred), I look forward to continuing the discussion -- but without the classic debating and naval tactic of making smoke. Do others outside of those who agree with the TSSIM believe that I have claimed too much above? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST