From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Feb 22 2006 - 07:07:32 EST
That was a very interesting quote indeed, considering the extent to which some followers of Sraffa have become 'tiresome objectors'. Ian Wright wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Another thought. Robert Vienneau at the end of this article > http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/sraffa.html > includes a quotation from Sraffa's notebooks. I include the quotation > below. Would it be fair to say that your view regarding the lack of > quantitative identity, that is "the deviations from the aggregate > equalities are *random* through time because OCCs have no structural > relation with relevant categories of goods" is very similar if not > identical to Sraffa's point of view? -- If so, that would make me the > "tiresome objector". > > "The propositions of M[arx] are based on the assumption that the > comp[osition] of any large agg[regate] of commodities (wages, profits, > const[ant] cap[ital]) consists of a random selection, so that the > ratio between their aggr[egate] (rate of s[urplus] v[alue], rate of > p[rofits]) is approx[imately] the same whether measured at 'values' or > at the p[rices] of prod[uction] corresp[onding] to any rate of > s[urplus] v[alue]. > > This is obviously true, and one would leave it at that, if it were not > for the tiresome objector, who relies on hypothetical deviations: > suppose, he says, that the capitalists changed the comp[osition] of > their consumption (of the same aggr[egate] price) to commod[itie]s of > a higher org[anic] comp[osition], the rate of s[urplus] v[alue] would > decrease if calc[ulated] at 'values', while it would remain unchanged > at p[rices] of p[roduction], which is correct? - and many similar > puzzles can be invented. > > (Better: the cap[italist]s switched part of their consumption from > comm[oditie]s of lower to higher org[anic] comp[osition], while the > workers switched to the same extent theirs from higher to lower, the > aggr[egate] price of each remaining unchanged...) > > It is clear that M[arx]'s pro[position]s are not intended to deal with > such deviations. They are based on the assumption (justified in > general) that the aggregates are of some average composition. This is > in general justified in fact, and since it is not intended to be > applied to detailed minute differences it is all right. > > This should be good enough till the tiresome objector arises. If then > one must define which is the average to which the comp[osite] should > conform for the result to be exact and not only approximate, it is the > St[andard] Comm[odity]... > > But what does this average 'approximate' to? i.e. what would it have > to be composed of (what weights sh[oul]d the average have) to be > exactly the St[andard] Com[modity]? > > i.e. Marx assumes that wages and profits consist approximately of > quantities of [the] st[andard] com[modity]." > -- Paul Cockshott Dept Computing Science University of Glasgow 0141 330 3125
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 23 2006 - 00:00:03 EST