Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Sun Mar 11 2007 - 18:05:39 EDT

• Next message: Paul Cockshott: "[OPE-L] The limits of fables"
• Previous message: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?"
• In reply to: ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu: "Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?"
• Next in thread: Paul Cockshott: "[OPE-L] The limits of fables"
• Reply: Paul Cockshott: "[OPE-L] The limits of fables"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> You repeat the same error of Solow or Samuelson. Sraffa's thinking
> is independent of the static/dynamic dichotomy (btw, I think you
> mean "stationary" versus qualitative capitalist development.

I don't agree with this point Riccardo. Sraffa's system is half an
equilibrium system. Sraffians cannot agree whether his theory is about
self-replacing equilibrium, or a novel event describing the production
of surplus yet to be distributed (note the absence of the real
distribution of income as given data in PCMC). In some respects it is
a failed attempt to get some kind of dynamic analysis from linear
algebra. Sraffa's thinking is not independent of the static/dynamic
issue, it falls between it. The tools of linear algebra, which Sraffa
employed, are inherently static.

• Next message: Paul Cockshott: "[OPE-L] The limits of fables"
• Previous message: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?"
• In reply to: ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu: "Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?"
• Next in thread: Paul Cockshott: "[OPE-L] The limits of fables"
• Reply: Paul Cockshott: "[OPE-L] The limits of fables"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT