From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 11:17:11 EDT
Hi Ian W. You sent the following message just as I was leaving for the boat so the following constitutes an over-due reply to part of that post. > -------- Original Message -------- > From: Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM> > Date: Sat, June 12, 2004 12:19 pm > > Jerry, > > > Ellipses and circles can be rigorously and consistently > > defined and comprehended. "Production" without (produced) > > means of production posits a situation like Ajit suggested -- > > silver pickers on a beach (where the silver can be picked up by > > hand without requiring any implements). Even without a > > division of labour -- even Robinson Crusoe! -- required means > > of production. After all, even Robinson Crusoe was a 'tool-making > > animal'. > > This makes no sense Jerry -- on what grounds can you maintain that a > "circles can be rigorously and consistently defined and comprehended" > and yet a simple production structure with labour as the only input > cannot? There mere fact we can both comprehend silver (and k-1 other > things) pickers on a beach makes it comprehensible. It could also > refer to an economic experiment in the laboratory. It could also refer > to a simple artificial market on the internet, say distributed > processors bidding for jobs. It could also refer to k consumer > commodities, abstracting from the indirect production processes. You are > indulging in wordplay here. No, I wasn't engaged in wordplay. I was asking a serious question -- which I don't think you've replied to -- if one is presenting a model or illustration that purports to say something meaningful about the capitalist mode of production "how simple is too simple"? (Note To Phil D: Yes, Marx did on occasion assume in simple numerical illustrations -- in Volume III of _Capital_ -- that c = -0-. But, that doesn't answer the question I was asking, does it? Can you explain "how simple is too simple" re a theory that purports to comprehend capitalism _without_ reference to Marx? Can we assume a classless society? Can we assume that c, v, and s _all_ equal -0-? NB: I am obviously not claiming that Ian did this. I am simply trying to have you and others explain "how simple is too simple" for grasping the subject matter of capitalism and _why_.) I'm not sure I understand what you mean by an "economic experiment in the laboratory". The subject of political economy is social and those social agents can not be examined in laboratory-like conditions, e.g. economic agents can not be put in a vacuum. Because of that (in part), assumptions are required for theory-building. We have no disagreement there. But, the question remains whether _particular_ assumptions _over_ simplify the subject matter (as for example is the case with Walrasian theory) and therefore inhibit and obscure understanding rather than advance it. I am not making an accusation here, I am asking a serious question. The issue shouldn't be whether we can comprehend silver pickers on a beach. Of course we can. The issue was whether that assumption/scenario helps us to comprehend _capitalism_. To move from an individual situation where an economic agent can be able to obtain a useful object without means of production -- as was the case with the hypothetical silver pickers on a beach -- to the macro level where we are seeking to represent in thought a viable self-reproducing mode of production runs the danger of committing the fallacy of composition. I.e. even if an isolated individual situation can be posited we can not legitimately infer that what is true for that individual situation is also true in the aggregate. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT