From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Mon Apr 09 2007 - 12:37:50 EDT
One can see in this exchange between Andrew and me that he concedes
that his critique of the Okishio Theorem is only logical and that in
his anti physicalism he has not addressed the effects of rising
physical or material productivity on value based magnitudes. I don't
know whether his new book which I do look forward to reading
remedies this one sided emphasis on value at the expense of the use
value and physical characteristics of the accumulation process. One
can see how Marx tried to keep both value magnitudes and use value
characteristics in my mind in showing that simple reproduction was
incompatible with capitalism. In rejecting the Sraffian physicalist
paradigm, TSS has gone too far in the value direction. But on this
Andrew said that he had "no time to address now." Andrew and no
TSS member has responded to Allin's and my criticism that they can't
make sense of Marx's talk of double divergence.
* To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
* Subject: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and profit
* From: "Drewk" <Andrew_Kliman@xxxxxxx>
* Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:28:20 -0500
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
"I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims."
I'll be happy to send you, or anyone else, an electronic copy upon
request. You need to be able to read math written in MSWord's
"equation editor 3."
"what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater
physical quantity of means of production and wage goods?"
This is a very complex issue that I have no time to address now.
"Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or
physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation
process?"
Yes, but I've written less about the accumulation process than you
may think. Refutations of the Okishio theorem and the displaying
of possible profit rate paths different from the path of the
"material rate of profit" don't count as analyses of the actual
accumulation process, in my book.
Andrew Kliman
P.S. For some reason, a lot of my mail is vanishing before it
hits my Inbox, so there might be posts that I haven't replied to
because I haven't seen them. I've retrieved a couple from the
archives already.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rakesh
Bhandari
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:33 PM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:23918] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Andrew writes:
>"A" physical surplus and "the" physical surplus mean exactly the
>same thing in this context.
ok
>
>I do not deny, but affirm "that with rising productivity there is
>indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass
>of
>surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of
>means of production and wage goods." This is the ESSENCE of
>anti-physicalism.
ok but then what are the consequences on accumulation from this
greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods?
Are
you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical
dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? I
think
you have bent the stick too far in the value direction.
>
>A "rough sense" is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at
>whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit.
ok. Again I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your
claims.
My knowledge of the Fundamental Marxian Theory derives from
Catephores' book.
RB
* To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
* Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding
surplus value and profit
* From: Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
* Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:56:13 -0800
I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the
real world.
ok Andrew you deny the existence of A physical surplus.
The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical
things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some,
deficits of others. There cannot be any "the" physical surplus.
now you deny the existence of THE physical surplus.
Granted there is not a single dimension in which this physical
surplus can be expressed.
Granted that with technical progress--say computers--it would be
difficult for example to determine how many more computer means of
production in which the surplus value is embodied.
But I think it's a mistake to deny that with rising productivity
there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that the mass of
surplus value even if it falls falls relative to the advanced capital
is in fact being expressed in a greater physical quantity of means of
production and wage goods, even if we have no precise measure for
that physical quantity.
If you deny this, you miss a crucial source of the elasticity and
explosiveness of accumulation.
My criticism of the TSS school again is that it is anti physicalist.
And again here is Marx on the matter:
Here is an example of Marx's ability to understand the surplus in
both its aspects:
...the development of labour productivity contributes to an increase
in the existing capital value, since it increases the mass and
diversity of use values in which the same exchange value is
represented, and which form the material substratum, the objective
elements of this capital, the substantial objects of which constant
capital consists directly and variable capital at least indirectly.
The same capital and the same labour produce more things that can be
transformed into capital, quite apart from the exchange value. These
things can serve to absorb additional labour, and thus additional
surplus labour also, and can in this way form additional capital. The
mass of labour that capital can command does not depend on the its
value but rather on the mass of raw and ancillary materials, of
machinery and elements of fixed capital, and of means of subsistence,
out of which it is composed, whatever their value may be. SINCE THE
MASS OF LABOUR APPLIED THUS GROWS, AND THE MASS OF SURPLUS LABOUR
WITH IT, THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL REPRODUCED AND THE SURPLUS VALUE
NEWLY ADDED TO IT GROWS AS WELL. Capital 3, p. 356-7. vintage
Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:16 EDT