I hope I'm not being unfair in juxtaposing these two snippets from recent posts by Steve K and asking him to comment: to Andrew K [#4218] I don't per se object to open-dimensional analysis, by the way: strictly speaking, capitalism is open-dimensional because technical change keeps generating new products ... But I would object to it if it were undertaken solely to avoid the TP. on Rakesh [#4228] It is possible to characterise the "simultaneist" analysis of the transformation problem as a dynamic solution in which all rates of change are set to zero. The conclusion of all these analyses is that the labor theory of value cannot be right. What you are alleging is that, effectively, the labor theory of value is only correct for positive rates of technical change, etc. If so, then it is not a general truth, and your approach to eliminating the transformation problem is as much a rejection of the labor theory of value as any simultaneist formulation. This is the point I believe that Allin was trying to get through to you (and as you know, I believe it is untrue at any rate of change). To take the second except first -- Steve, would I be right in thinking that by "general truth" you do NOT mean a claim like "the square root of two cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers"? But in that case, what *do* you mean: a statement true about capitalism in general? If so, then isn't the claim that the LTV is not a general truth about capitalism belied by your comment in the earlier post? Here I'd like to take you up on what you mean by a "positive rate of technical change" [second post]; I'd guess that you mean "one which keeps generating new products" (and deleting older ones?) [first post] -- in which case I suppose a *negative* rate of technical change would be one in which *old* products were revived (and newer ones deleted). The point is that while a negative rate of technical change in this sense is clearly logically conceivable (I've just done it), I simply can't accept that such a thing is compatible with the continued existence of capitalism. One of the most striking features of capitalism is that it is the first social system in which the ruling class has an indispensable need for continual technical innovation. I think I'd support a claim that this is not only because of the undoubted competitive motivation, but also because innovation helps legitimate the system. At all events, I'm sure that if society was to suffer technical regression, it would have to suffer social regression as well, e.g. revert to feudalism or slavery. Julian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST