[OPE-L:5153] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one commodity models and illustrations

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re Duncan's [OPE-L:5152]:



> You'd probably want to treat labor-power as a
> different commodity in  this setup. But any
> general theorems that would  be true for
> multi-commodity economies would have to hold
>  for this one as well.

I don't think that follows. If it did, then perhaps
we'd be able to conclude that any general
theorems that apply within a Walrasian
general equilibrium system also apply within
a capitalist economy.

What is at issue is the minimum specification
for a model or illustration that purports to have
meaning for a capitalist economy.  If we don't
accurately specify the model, then we can obtain
a model or illustration that has as much meaning
for comprehending capitalism as the Walrasian
model.

If we eliminate in our models and
numerical illustrations  the distinguishing
characteristics of capitalism as a distinct mode
of production (such as the class relations specific
to capitalism) then our theory can no longer
comprehend the nature of any subject matter
specific to capitalism. This means that our
illustrations must have the two major classes, multi-
commodity production, labor-power, money, and
the basic categories associated with capitalism
(including c, v, and s) if it is to have analytical worth. If we are talking
about technical change
and dynamic models/illustrations, then I think
that our illustrations should also have constant
fixed capital as well as constant circulating
capital.

In solidarity, Jerry