Re: utopia/Freeman's dynamics

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

In his thoughtful response to Jim's comment Steve Keen
again tries to save a place for static analysis within the
realm of Marx.  Why bother?  The only thing that happens
when one does is that Marx's work gets kicked about.


Steve claims that the analysis in Books I and III of
CAPITAL is static.  I'm not sure where this comes from
other than secondary sources, the vast majority of which
are steeped in neo-classical economics.  Indeed, in the
first book, as Marx  introduces  the concept change in
technique, he speaks of the individual value of a
commodity and its social value.  For the Sraffians, the
social value of a commodity becomes the individual value
in an entirely smooth fashion --  generally, by solving a
few simultaneous equations.  Of the investment tied up
in constant capital, of the funds borrowed on the basis
of that investment, of the changes in the nominal wages,
etc.  we hear nothing.   This is what has become of
modern political economy.  And now it sees its own static
analysis in Marx.  Is there textual evidence for that
interpretation?  We hear none but instead are treated
to opinions that Books I and III are exercises in static
analysis. Perhaps Book II, where Marx, by and large,
abstracted from technical change is not static?

To be sure, a dynamic interpretation of Marx does
require that we read Marx without the aid of the
Sraffians and their precursors.  So what?  They seem
to make a living via a critique of this or that.  Let them
stick to what Sraffa intended -- a critique of standard
economics. Then either read Marx or leave him alone.

The Sraffians have produced an analysis of nothing in
over 30 years.  The dynamic interpretation of Marx is
barely over a decade old.  We need to get on with it.






On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 Steve.Keen@xxxxxxxxxxx said:


>In response to me recommending that Jim Miller check out
>the Sraffian critique of Marx, Jim J asked:
>
>|        Hasn't Alan Freeman pointed out the flaw in Sraffan
>|interpretations of Marx's work -- their lack of dialectical movement, for

>|one??
>
>In my opinion, while Alan has done something very valuable for
>Marxian economics, he hasn't destroyed the Sraffian critique of
>Marx.
>
>What he has done that is valuable is introduce dynamic,
>non-equilibrium analysis into Marxism. By applying this to
>Marx's reproduction schema, he can show that, because price today
>is a complex function of value in previous time periods, then
>the fact that the Sraffians can show logical problems relating
>price to value *simultaneously* is irrelevant.
>
>But this begs the question of whether Marx's analysis of value
>and price was itself dynamic or static (as expressed in Vols. I
>and III of Capital).
>
>Alan argues that it was dynamic; here I disagree. While Marx's
>overall vision of capitalism was undoubtedly dynamic, I
>believe that his "value and the source of profit" analysis
>in Vol. I, and his "reconciliation of price and value"
>analysis in Vol. III, were both fundamentally static. So
>for Alan's excellent work on dynamics to be a way out of
>the Sraffian critique, Marx has to be re-interpreted once more.
>
>Jim expresses a bit of chagrin at that; I have no such qualms
>per se--clearly I'm amongst those who have put forward a
>reinterpretation--but I don't think Alan's reinterpretation
>is accurate.
>
>My problem with it is not how it differs from all those which
>have preceded it, but with what it has in common with them.
>All such reinterpretations (those which have attempted to
>sidestep some non-Marxist critique of Marxist logic) have
>had as their prime aim preserving the labor theory of
>value. I have the peculiar belief that the LTV was not the
>pinnacle of Marx's logic, but instead its maintenance was
>the product of Marx's misapplication of his own logic. So
>I'm quite willing to accept non-Marxist critiques of the
>LTV, and then respond that there's something far richer in
>Marx that isn't susceptible to such critiques.
>
>Cheers,
>Steve "Ahab" Keen
>
>
>     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--
John R. Ernst


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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