From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 11:49:45 EST
Re Chris's [8533]: > IMHO the assumption (not law) of equal rates of exploitation and the > assumption (not law) of equal profit rates are entirely theoretically > justified by the need to isolate the effect of different determinants. > What happens to these rates empirically is another question. The issue in this thread, posed originally by Paul C in [8297] and addressed more recently by Mike L [8504; 8523], is "why the rate of profit between sectors does not equalize in the way expected by Marx" [8297]. It seems *entirely* appropriate while attempting to answer that question to look at Marx's assumptions. Whether those assumptions were legitimate in the context of Part Two, of Volume 3 of _Capital_ is an entirely different, and more abstract, question. I would add, further, that if one within the context of a systematic dialectical presentation makes assumptions with the intention of isolating the effect of different determinants then one is theoretically *required* at a more concrete level of the presentation to either withdraw those assumptions to see how one's understanding of the subject is modified or to demonstrate that what was previously assumed can now be shown to be a result. I seriously question whether one can demonstrate (theoretically and empirically) a tendency for the equalization of rates of surplus value within the context of the dynamic process of capital accumulation. Instead, I think that the most one can demonstrate is that there are certain periods in which the disparity in rates of surplus value is greater or lesser and explain (theoretically and empirically) the causes for the changes in disparity. Solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 00:00:01 EST