To continue on with the thoughts expressed in [OPE-L:5032]: Some might ask: what is wrong -- "what's the harm?"-- with employing the v = o assumption? My answers: 1) What is the *subject* that one is investigating? *If* one wants to say anything meaningful about *capitalism*, it is both an absurd and illegitimate assumption. It is *illegitimate* because the v = 0 assumption is inconsistent with the defining character -- the class relationships -- of capitalism. In other words, if you assume v = 0 you are no longer talking about capitalism on even the *most abstract* level. 2) It is *politically retrograde* -- harking back to the "vulgar economists" that Marx was so critical of -- to obscure the class relations of capitalism. Indeed, to make the v = 0 assumption is to (at least temporarily) vacate the *working class* from one's theory. This is not by any means an innocent assumption. Rather, it is a assumption which allows the theory to be developed by omitting the working class from what we call capitalism. Alternatively, it is as legiitmate as if one were to claim that one is talking about capitalism even if there was no capital and capitalists. One might call either conception a *petty-bourgois fantasy*. 3) It is attributing a perspective *to Marx* that runs counter to his whole understanding of the specificity of modes of production. It is therefore not part of what it claims to be -- an interpretation of Marx. Rather, it is currently being used in an *interpretation of interpretations of Marx*. What makes this worse is that it has not been acknowledged (at least publicly). 4) *Mathematical simplification* is desirable but it can not be used when and where it represents an injustice to the theory itself (see above). Thus, using the v = 0 assumption is part of a *trend* among Marxists who also routinely use such contrivences as one-sector models/illustrations and corn models. This trend has been sometimes referred to, originally by Alain Liepitz I believe, as "Algrebraic Marxism". Yet, there is hardly ever a recognition of the extent to which the *adaption* to the mathematical techniques of bourgeois or "heterodox" economic theories affects the *methodology* that one is employing. 5) It allows the critics of Marx, in this case Steedman and Okishio, to determine the *agenda* of the discussion around Marx. Indeed, one might see it as a *concession to Sraffian theory* (see my previous post). In doing so, there has been an acceptance of at least part of the *methodology* of surplus approach theory. Moreover, and far worse, it keeps Marxists within a *defensive* mode, i.e. defending Marx from perceived attacks against his theory rather than advancing the analysis. This strategy has been *so successful* that for over 100 years Marxists have remained stuck on a discussion of the transformation et. al.! I guess the real winners are Bohm-Bawerk, Tugan-Baranowsky, and Bortkiewicz -- since it has been *their* agenda which has ensnared research on Marxist political economy for the last century. They could not have been successful without Marxists that have implicitly conceded that the issues that the Marx critics have raised are the most important issues to discuss and debate. Thus the v = 0 assumption has to be seen within the above contexts to fully appreciate its meaning. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST