Re: [Marxism] question: equation of accumulation models

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

brendan cooney wrote:
> It's the "C2+^C2=V1+^V2+So1" that I don't understand.  Why would the  
> demand for means of production in Department 2 be equal to the demand  
> for consumer goods in Department 1?  I can't figure out how he makes  
> this conclusion.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

I'd have to read Harvey but this sounds suspiciously like the arguments 
made by Rosa Luxemburg in "The Accumulation of Capital", which posits 
disequilibrium between Department I and II as a source of chronic 
instability in the capitalist system based on an underconsumptionist 
logic. I can't recall if I posted this to Marxmail, but here is my take 
on Rosa Luxemburg from the intro to Marxism mailing list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxism_class/message/153

It strikes me, btw, that this fixation on disequilibriums in Department 
I and II is just another instance of viewing Marx's analysis of the 
capitalist system in static terms, just like the "Transformation 
Problem". In either case, alleged mathematical inconsistencies in 
Capital turn into endless and to some degree misguided attempts to 
resolve them. The problem is in treating the capitalist system as the 
sum of its parts rather than a dynamic system that is constantly 
breaking through various limits of time and space. From this 
perspective, underconsumption is only a tendency rather than a detonator 
of millenarian crisis. Likewise, the transformation problem is resolved 
simply by understanding that prices and labor time approximate each 
other but not in some kind of rigid mathematical fashion.

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism