From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Mon Nov 01 2004 - 11:07:38 EST
At 8:01 AM -0500 11/1/04, Paul Zarembka wrote: >On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >>... Andrew T. ... > >I don't know what paper of Andrew Trigg Rakesh refers to. In a recent Science and Society. > Why don't you >communicate with him, Rakesh, and get his own answer. Trigg's email is >A.B.Trigg@open.ac.uk. As a member of this list, he has received this last comment and the previous one. > >> As for Rosa L, not one of her theoretical defenders (and this >> includes Paul Z) has responded to the best of my knowledge to the >> following criticisms made of her by Grossmann, repeated by Mattick Sr. > >As to Luxemburg (why "Rosa L.", but you don't call Grossmann "Henryk >G."?): She is referred to as Luxemburg in the remainder of message. > >Responding to our comments below, Luxemburg followed Marx from Vol. 1 to >2 and continued to abstract from the transformation problem. Sure, it's >then not complete, but she made her point clearly. Her point is undermined by failure to see how formation of price of production could eliminate disproportionalities she isolates in vol II schema. > >The charge that Rosa doesn't understand that Marx's reproduction schemes >are in values, not prices, is ridiculous and not deserving of my >attention. As I said, no one has responded to Henryk G and Paul M's criticisms. But thank you for quoting them again. rb >Paul Z. > >> That is, whatever disproportionalities or realization difficulties >> she isolates in Marx's reproduction schema could be corrected through >> the formation of prices of production and the redistribution of value >> implicit in that formation. Luxemburg forgets that Marx's schema are >> given in values, not prices of production. >> >> "in a reproduction schema built on values, different >> rates of profit must arise in each dept of the schema. There is >> reality however a tendency for the different rates of profit to be >> equalized to average rates, a circumstance which is already embraced >> in the concept of production prices. So that if one wants to take the >> schema as a basis for criticizing or granting the possibility of >> realising surplus value, it would first have to be transformed into a >> price schema." >> >> Moreover, "'Since competition gives rise to the >> transformation of values into production prices and thereby the >> redistribution of the surplus value among the brances of industry (in >> the schema), whereby there necessarily occurs also a change in the >> previous proportionality relation of the spheres of the schema, it is >> quite possible >> AND EVEN PROBABLE that "a consumption balance" in the value schema >> subsequently vanishes in the production price schema and inversely , >> an original equilibrium is subsequently transformed into the >> production price schema into a disproportionality.'" my emphasis >> >> >> And Mattick, 1935: >> >> "The theoretical confusion of Rosa Luxemburg is best illustrated in >> the fact that on the one hand she sees in the average rate of profit >> the governing factor which 'actually treats each individual capital >> only as part of the total social capital, accords it profit as part >> of the surplus value to which it is entitled in accordance with its >> magnitude, without regard to the quantity which it has actually won', >> and that she nevertheless examines the question as to whether a >> complete exchange is possible; and that on the basis of a schema >> which knows no average rate of profit. If one takes into account this >> average rate of profit, Rosa Luxemburg's disproportionality argument >> loses all value, since one department sells above and the other under >> value and on the basis of the production price the undisposable part >> of the surplus value may vanish."(this 1935 analysis reprinted in >> Anti Bolshevik >> Communism, ME Sharpe, 1978, p. 38) >> >> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EST