Re: TRPF

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

Jim,

I think we need to take Steve seriously.  His and
E. Khalil's  approach to the idea of value is
dominant.  Let's call it the 20th Century approach
and ours the 21st Century approach.  My suugestion
in an early post was that we use the notion of historic
valuation in our analysis of capitalism.  At that point,
Khalil's message makes no sense as in socialism
historic valuation would not be necessary since no
one would care about it -- the means of production
are not owned by anyone and hence not capital.

Further, you need to look at the relation of inputs and
outputs as accumulation takes place in capitalism.
For Steve and Khalil, a necessary but not sufficient
condition for a FRP is that capital inputs grow faster
than outputs, when inputs and outputs are simulaneously
valued.  As I said earlier, this is not true in Marx although
it is imputed to his work by more than a few Marxists.

Thus, to answer Khalil and Steve, it seems to me that
you need to deal with both of these issues.


Yours in orthodoxy,

John


On Tue, 10 Oct 1995 Steve.Keen@xxxxxxxxxxx said:


>Jim Miller comments:
>
>|   Steve makes the mistake of talking about "capital" and
>|"profit" in socialist (or communist) society. But this is
>|just fantastic. It seems to me to be adapting to the idea
>|that capitalism is eternal.
>
>Jim, the sense in which I was using "capital" in that post
>was as physical machinery, not a social relation. Equally,
>my references were mainly to an investible surplus, not
>profit, because while the latter is a social category, the
>former is a necessity in any productive system which grows
>over time. If a social system doesn't produce a surplus
>over current consumption and depreciation, then it cannot
>grow.
>
>And while I do not believe that capitalism is eternal, it
>is certainly far more durable than Marx thought, and than
>many Marxists today seem to appreciate. One reason for
>this disparity between belief and reality may be that
>some of Marx's analytical apparatus are flawed. Khalil's
>paper points out one such potential problem with the
>TRPF, and I thought it wise, in the midst of your series
>of posts, to raise this one flaw.
>
>Those who have been on this list since its inception would
>be aware that I could have started criticising your
>analysis a lot earlier. But for the sake of avoiding
>bashing old ears too much, I refrained until you
>started on the TRPF.
>
>The opening to your response to me leads me to conclude
>that I might as well stop with the TRPF:
>
>|   Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, with capital's
>|power defeated on a world scale, the new society of the
>|associated producers gradually takes shape. In place of
>|the anarchy of the market, conscious planned production and
>|distribution is instituted. The law of value is defeated
>|by rational collective control of the means of production.
>|Capital, profit, money, commodities and value disappear.
>
>I see your reply as utopian. Allowing for Louis's recent
>arguments that what occurred in the USSR was not planning
>as it should be, I cannot help but see your comments above
>as being devoid of any appreciation for what happened in
>the 20th Century.
>
>Throw-away lines about the disappearance of money,
>commodities and value under socialism may have been good
>revolutionary rhetoric in the 19th century, but if you
>want to be taken seriously as we approach the 21st,
>you had better have a sound analysis as to how these
>things might feasibly be done.
>
>Cheers,
>Steve Keen
>
>
>     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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