Andrew wrote in [OPE-::3426]:
> I wish to thank Paul for returning to the issues we were discussing.
The fundamental issue that we have been discussing concerns whether it is
legitimate to use the assumption of v = 0 in an interpretation of Marx's
understanding of accumulation and related matters (e.g. technical change,
LTGRPD, etc.). The R = 0 assumption was basically brought up to obscure
that discussion, IMHO. Of course, as we have seen, this discussion has
raised *other* -- very fundamental! -- questions concerning what our
understanding of capitalism is and I will note that Andrew has *still* not
answered #3383, #3400, or other points in recent posts on this thread that
I have written.
> This also means that Jerry's statement in ope-l 3372:
> "to not explicitly include R is different from negating the existence of a
> category, such as v, which has already been
> developed and is crucial for the subject matter in question -- accumulation
> and the general r."
> is wrong --- net profit and thus R is crucial for understanding accumulation
> and the general r --- and thus the assumption that R = 0 is impermissible
> according to Jerry's methodology. He thus has a double standard, as I have
> noted.
It is you who have the double standard. You have quoted Marx whenever the
occasion suited you, but when what Marx wrote as in conflict with your
"interpretation", you evade both Marx and the theoretical questions under
discussion.
As the above makes clear, I have insisted all along -- using my
"methodology" -- that basic categories that were developed by Marx himself
and which he said were crucial for the understanding of accumulation and
related matters, can not be negated unless we negate the subject matter
under discussion itself or reject Marx's understanding of those subjects.
The record is *very clear*: Marx considered v (and also *wage-labour*) to
be *crucial* categories that are required to understand the process of the
accumulation of capital. *When* and *where* did Marx _develop_ the
_category_ of R? *Certainly* not in _Capital_. *When* and *where* did Marx
ever say that R was crucial to understanding the process of the
accumulation of capital?
You can say you are right a hundred times and that won't convince anyone.
You can say you are right a million times and that won't convince anyone.
Not once have you attempted to relate the categories of v and "R" in Marx
and show that _Marx_ viewed "R" as a _basic_ category on the same par with
c, v, or s (or other basic categories such as commodities, money, profit,
wage-labour, etc.). I have to conclude, therefore, that you know you are
wrong and I am right.
In Solidarity,
Jerry