This is a response to Jerry's ope-l 3067.
When other people on the list discussed the maximum profit rate, you didn't
try to get them to "just forget once and for all that v = 0 assumption," but
when I do it you become the Miss Manners of methodology. Why?
If you want to discuss "that v = 0 assumption," then I'm willing to do it,
but let's do it properly. Let's go back to where you broke it off several
months ago. Basically you said let's agree to disagree, instead of responding
to my critique of your textual analysis, in which I noted, inter alia, that
the following imply one another: the whole working day appropriated by
capital, necessary labor equal to 0, and wages (or v) equal to zero. Let's
first settle whether I'm right about that. Then let's settle the issue of
whether Marx actually made this assumption. Then let's seriously resume the
discussion of the specificity of *Marx's* Marxian methodology (which, I
contend, permits "unrealistic" assumptions) and see if this concept sheds any
light on the alleged "incompleteness" of _Capital_. And that will mean we
will have to discuss the concept of "Marx's Marxism" in a serious manner.
If you want models with v > 0, or any other models, YOU build them. As Alan
has reiterated very rightly, very clearly, and very forcefully in recent days,
what we (he and I) are talking about has nothing to do with models and
assumptions, and never has. What we are talking about pertains to the
transition rules applicable to any and all models. As both he and I have said
several times on this list, to understand our examples and illustrations as
behavioral models and/or as representations of reality is to MISunderstand
them. Thus, to interpret my response to Duncan as a critique of the lack of
realism of the "assumptions" of his "model" is way off the mark.
Andrew Kliman
of your objections And let's really discuss concretely *why* Marx made
this "assumption," even though it isn't "realistic"
and failing to respond to my
> 2. workers' consumption is zero
> One can, for instance, let the extraction of living labor increase or
> decrease over time, and/or introduce positive wages, [...]
> But his [Duncan's] discussion of the profit rate does assume
> circulating constant capital, which,
> along with depreciation of fixed capital, is always present in capitalism.
For someone who felt the need to point out that I omitted "all three volumes"
from the end of a quotation from Tony Smithit so important need to quote in
context was so important
how would you like it if I chopped up your post
economists do not
behave as Duncan asserts. They do not use these models to
test the coherency of generally held prejudices. What they
actually do is to reassure themselves that these generally
held prejudices are safe. They take issue with one minute
assumption in the model (pretty ironic in view of the way
the (E) assumption is used), heave a sigh of relief and set
the whole thing on one side. I don't think they ever will do
anything else. Something deeper is at stake. Models have
become a means of staving off facing the issues, not a way
of engaging in scientific discourse.
----------
From: ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu on behalf of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, September 20, 1996 8:35 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [OPE-L:3067] assumptions, assumptions, assumptions
Andrew wrote in [OPE-L:3063]:
> 2. workers' consumption is zero
> One can, for instance, let the extraction of living labor increase or
> decrease over time, and/or introduce positive wages, [...]
> But his [Duncan's] discussion of the profit rate does assume
> circulating constant capital, which,
> along with depreciation of fixed capital, is always present in capitalism.
Andrew: you seem to be suggesting that within a discussion of profit rate
determination, constant circulating and constant fixed capital need to
both be positive since they are "always present in capitalism." Yet, workers'
consumption = 0 is *never* present in capitalism. Why can't you just
forget once and for all that v = 0 assumption? Yes, I know I'm beginning
to sound like a broken record (see the beginnings of the "assumptions,
assumptions, assumptions" thread a few months back). Let's instead develop
models where constant circulating capital > 0, constant fixed capital
> 0, and variable capital > 0.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry