Re: Marxist economics

["John R. Ernst" <ernst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

Not to worry so much.  My old classmate, Khalil, is forced to use what I
call
the "embodied" labor theory of value.  In that theory, the social values of

commodities are assumed to move harmlessly toward their individual values
as
economists hum the magic work -- "Competition."  I am not sure for how long

they must do this for the two concepts to coincide quantitatively, but let
me
assure you they have been doing it for some time.

To get to Khalil's point, you must also assume that capital inputs increase

faster that outputs as productivity increases.  This may be true as
capitalism
moves from manufacture to large scale industry but, as Marx notes, it is
not true in capitalism itself.

Kahlil does show, intentionally or not, that the simple way of
intrepretating the
concept of value can quickly become the source of stupidity.

Regards,

John
On Sun, 8 Oct 1995 Jim Jaszewski <jjazz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:


>
>On Fri, 6 Oct 1995 Steve.Keen@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> "The proposed contention is based on two arguments drawn from Marx's
>> writings. First, labor-time calculation remains valid in the socialist
>> economy. Second, technological innovations continue to take place--
>> at an even faster rate... Taking these two arguments into
>> consideration, Marx's theory implies that the socialist economy
>> would also be afflicted by the falling-rate-of-return law." (p. 293)
>>
>> Khalil concludes that:
>>
>> "Either Marx's theory is about the contradictions of production
>> in general and, hence, cannot serve as the scientific grounding
>> of revolutionary politics, or the theory is untenable as an
>> explanatory proposition of economic crises." (p. 307)
>
>       I don't see how the conclusions necessarily follow from the
>premises.  Don't `socialist Relations of Production' imply that -- even
>considering the objective nature of the FROP across ALL social formations
>-- the means will then exist (which don't now) to distribute the Social
>Product in ways which will negate the negative effects of FROP, as we are
>presently enslaved to it??
>
>       Why would this `make untenable' the `scientific-ness' of our need
>to get rid of this Monster of Production?  The very nature of FROP under
>THIS particular system leads, according to all objective observation, to
>crises of a magnitude never imaginable previously.  I don't see how
>hypothetical problems with it under socialism obviate the analysis (and
>ridding) of it under its `present manifestation'...
>
>       Another `Forest for the Trees' problem here??
>
>
>+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
>| Jim Jaszewski <jjazz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>     PGP Public Key
available. |
>| http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html
  |
>+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------