From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sat Feb 11 2006 - 10:03:40 EST
Hi Ian, I finally have some time to reply to some of the points in your recent messages. Thanks very much for your detailed responses. Selected excerpts and responses below. On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Ian Wright wrote: > > > Are you rejecting simultaneous determination, for example? > > > > Yes, I reject simultaneous determination. That is, I argue that Marx's > > theory is not based on the simultaneous determination of input prices and > > output prices. My rejection of simultaneous determination is not the same > > as TSS (see below), but they have been pioneers in calling simultaneous > > determination into question. > > I agree that Marx's theory is irreducibly dynamic. For instance, his > distinction between constant and variable captial, in which variable > capital is precisely that part of capital that does not regularly and > systematically transfer value during the production process, is a > "dynamic" distinction, which is bound to be effaced in static > equilibrium models. > > But, there still needs to be a good reason or explanation for why > Marx's labour-value accounting cannot determine the price rate of > profit (and other price phenomena) in Bortkiewicz's special case. We > shouldn't we expect Marx's claims to hold in this special case? No, there is no reason to expect that Marx's claims would hold in "Bortkieviecz's special case". Because Marx's claims are based on Marx's theory, and "Bortkieviecz's special case" is based on an entirely differently theory, linear production theory. Marx's theory determines values and prices in one way (according to a unique logical method, which I have explained many times), and "Bortkieviecz's special case" determines values and prices in an entirely different way (according to the logical method of linear production theory). So why should we expect that Marx's claims would hold in "Bortkieviecz's special case"? On the other hand, the fact that Marx's claims do not hold for "Bortkieviecz's special case" SAYS NOTHING about MARX'S theory, because Marx's theory is entirely different from "Bortkieviecz's special case". > By rejecting simultaneous determination I think you are more > accurately developing Marx's theory, I am glad that you agree on this important point. > but you are not directly > addressing the modern form of the transformation problem. But since the "modern form of the transformation problem" is based on an entirely different theory from Marx's theory, there is no reason to address it, except to show that it is a misinterpretation of Marx's theory. It implies nothing about the logical coherency of Marx's theory. > That is ok > -- it might not interest you, or you might think it unimportant etc. I understand that you are trying to show that there is an error within the modern formulation of the transformation problem, and I think that is an interesting thing to do, but again it has nothing to do with Marx's theory. > Yes the Sraffian framework is in many ways unrealistic. (Although they > can deal with different turnover periods). Ian, would you please send me references of Sraffian works that assume different turnover periods. I don't see how this can be made compatible with the reproduction of physical quantities. > > Sraffa's question is: how can exchange of all goods take > > place at the end of the period (after the "harvest"), so that the initial > > physical quantities can be exactly reproduced, and the same process can > > start all over again the next period. > > Yes, but some Sraffians reject the self-replacing interpretation of > Sraffa's theory -- they view his surplus equations as being more > general than that. But overall I think this is fair comment. Again would you please send references of such Sraffians? I don't see how they can take the physical quantities as given and at the same time reject the reproduction of these physical quantities. > Yes, the Sraffian model abstracts from many of these things. So what? > Bortkiewicz pointed out quite some time ago that if Marx's theory > doesn't hold in a simple, special case, then there is no reason to > think it will scale-up to more complex situations. (Unless there is a > good reason to think otherwise). But there is a good reason to think that Marx's theory would apply to more complex situations - because Marx's theory is an entirely different theory from "Bortkiewicz's special case" of linear production theory. > So Fred, I agree about the different starting points between Marx and > Sraffa, and I agree that the Sraffian framework is in many ways > unrealistic. But what have these points got to do with the > neo-Ricardian critique of Marx's value theory? These points have everything to do with the neo-Ricardian critique of Marx's theory. It follows from these points that the neo- Ricardian critique DOES NOT APPLY to Marx's theory, because the critique is based on a misinterpretation of Marx's theory. If values and prices are determined as in Sraffian theory, then the neo-Ricardian critique follows, i.e. there is no necessary link between values and prices. Maybe you can show otherwise. However, in either case, if values and prices are determined as in Marx's theory, as I have suggested in my work, then there is a necessary link between values and prices - values determine the total amount of profit and the general rate of profit, which in turn determines (in part) prices of production. Ian, thanks again for the discussion, and I look forward to its continuation. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 00:00:02 EST