Re Duncan's [OPE-L:5152]: > You'd probably want to treat labor-power as a > different commodity in this setup. But any > general theorems that would be true for > multi-commodity economies would have to hold > for this one as well. I don't think that follows. If it did, then perhaps we'd be able to conclude that any general theorems that apply within a Walrasian general equilibrium system also apply within a capitalist economy. What is at issue is the minimum specification for a model or illustration that purports to have meaning for a capitalist economy. If we don't accurately specify the model, then we can obtain a model or illustration that has as much meaning for comprehending capitalism as the Walrasian model. If we eliminate in our models and numerical illustrations the distinguishing characteristics of capitalism as a distinct mode of production (such as the class relations specific to capitalism) then our theory can no longer comprehend the nature of any subject matter specific to capitalism. This means that our illustrations must have the two major classes, multi- commodity production, labor-power, money, and the basic categories associated with capitalism (including c, v, and s) if it is to have analytical worth. If we are talking about technical change and dynamic models/illustrations, then I think that our illustrations should also have constant fixed capital as well as constant circulating capital. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT