From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2008 - 03:54:47 EDT
It is hard to see if Marx would have agreed with this, since it is a formulation that bourgeois economics arrived at well after his time. I think that arguements for or against it have to stand on their own merits rather than refering back to a writer who never had to confront the problem. Paul Cockshott Dept of Computing Science University of Glasgow +44 141 330 1629 www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ -----Original Message----- From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of Jurriaan Bendien Sent: Sun 4/20/2008 2:54 PM To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list Subject: [OPE] Problems in International Political Economy(IPE)shaikhsdefence of Marx Paul, Thanks for your comment. I do admire your work, though I do not have a good grasp yet of Bolzmann, Yakovenko, Leopold Kronecker and Emmy Noether (the poesis is interesting). I am a bit doubtful though about using concepts used to describe the determinism of physical systems to describe the reproducibility of a social order. Arguably, most conventional equilibrium theorizing is based on these main theorems: 1) An equilibrium in resource allocation is constituted through trade 2) There exists a set of (equilibrium) prices at which all markets will clear 3) Trading activity, if unimpeded by any restrictions on trade, will reach these prices and therefore will reach the equilibrium state Seems to me however that all these assumptions are not accepted by Marx, and that their acceptance depends on assuming counterfactual conditions. Jurriaan _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT