From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Feb 22 2006 - 07:10:03 EST
Andrew Brown wrote: > Hi Paulo, > > That's not how they come out on my system. Must be incredibly annoying > for you (and I wonder how many others are in your situation?). Not > sure what I can do about it. Advice anyone? > / suspec that you are preparing your emails using a system that has line wrapping like a word processor. You can not assume that all mail reading programs will handle wrapped lines intelligently. It is better to put in new lines after every 60 characters or so. / > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L on behalf of Francisco Paulo Cipolla > Sent: Tue 21/02/2006 10:20 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Cc: > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] price of production/supply price/value > > > > Andrew, > why is that only your posts come intermonably horizontal all > the way to he infinite? > All others are well behaved in columns. > Why is it? > Paulo > > Andrew Brown wrote: > > > Hi Ian, > > > > One of the key aspects of your argument, as I understand it, > is expressed as follows: > > > > " I do not think you have explained why the presence of > technical change is necessary for > > the quantitative identity of labour-value and price." > > > > and, again, > > > > "Your interpretation of Marx ...[involves]... the > relationship between > > labour-value and the value-form under dynamic conditions of > technical > > change. But to consider this a full response to the modern > TP you > > need to better explain why quantitative identity does not > and should > > not hold under the conditions of the problem. I do not think > you have > > done that." > > > > Let me answer your questions. The reason why the two > aggregate equalities *do* not hold in the static case that you analyse > is that profit is equalised on the size of capital advanced, > regardless of the composition of capitals into the value creating 'v' > and the value preserving 'c' . Marx's own analysis makses this quite > clear (it is a myth that it is inferia to the Sraffian calculation or > logically flawed), as does a Sraffian calculation. The various lines > of attack on the Sraffian calculation, including those you have > raised, do not significantly threaten this basic point. However, the > deviations from the aggregate equalities are *random* through time > because OCCs have no structural relevation with relevant categories of > goods. This conclusion stems from examining the OCC and wage goods, > 'luxury' goods and means of production, examining the real things > referred to, their content or real structure. *Only* if you abstract > from this content, can you conclude that it is arbitrary to consider > their relation random. This is why I refer to formal logic, which > abstracts from content, and dialectical logic which does not. If you > like, over a century of debate over the TP has been mired in an > inablity to actually examine the qualitative content of the variables > with which it deals - it has been stuck in formalism. > > > > You ask why I think the two aggregate equalities *should* > not hold together in the static context. Well I think they *should*, > and *do*, if one analyses the relevant static case, where the OCCs and > the relevant categories of goods are recognised to be in a random > relationship. I can add one point that may be helpful, in response to > your following argument. You wrote: > > > > "Whether the relationship is "strong" or "weak" is > irrelevant. The > > point is that, once you admit logically that the presence of > > capitalist profits *alters* the quantitative identity between > > labour-value and price, no matter whether the alteration is > > quantitatively small, large, weak, strong, only happens once > in a > > while etc., then it follows that there must be either *another* > > determinant of the value-form other than labour-time, or > perhaps that > > labour-time is *not* the determinant at all. Labour-time > therefore > > cannot be *the* substance of value in capitalism." > > > > The answer is that the deviation is the result of the > peculiarities of the value substance. Abstract labour does nothing at > all directly (because it is abstract) but only via mediation, > eventually entailing the anarchic complexities of price of production > and everything else we see in Marx's 'Capital'. This is an important > qualitative point because the long run quantitative negligiblility of > the average deviation is just that, long run. The ability of other > factors to have significant effects on the average deviation in the > short run is the quantitative manifestation of the fact that the > abstractness of the value substance has no analogy in the natural > sciences or elsewhere (except Hegelian idealism) - which may be why > it affronts your intuitions. But these other factors are not differing > OCCs, they are the factors that lead to crises, the factors of boom > and bust. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Andy > > -- 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