>. What was important, simply, is that *some* arbitrary
>assumption about production periods was necessary from the standpoint of
>further understanding the turnover time of different elements of capital
>and the period of the reproduction of the total capital. Had Marx not
>made these assumptions, then how would he have been able to model the
>reproduction and accumulation processes?
Yet couldn't these models be read as to reveal the absurd assumptions one
would have to make in order to demonstrate a real tendency towards
equilibrium? That is, in order for equilibrium to obtain, all capitals must
have the same turnover time; there must be a perfect synchronization of
turnover of fixed and circulating capital and the synchronization of
turnover of department one and department two capitals, despite the greater
durability of the former. Of course Grossmann attempted to demonstrate why
each assumption was only preliminary and simplfying, while for the dominant
theory such assumptions represent a definitive methodological observation.
By clarifying the assumptions required to model the reproduction and
accumulation processes as equilibriated, Marx demonstrates the
impossibility of equilibrium.