Re: Occam's Razor

[ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (bill mitchell)]

Herb (after receiving at least 3 mails from me on this topic says:

>	I don't know what 'capitalist efficiency' is.
>
Does this mean you disregard my points on this, Herb? I also referred to an
RRPE (Mitchell and Watts, Vol 17, Nos 1&2, Spring and Summer 1985). There
(p.214) it is argued:

Mitchell (referring to an earlier work) concludes that it makes no logical
sense to discuss two aspects of efficiency...[referring to Gordon's (1976)
quantitative/qualititative distinction]......, each of which belongs to a
separate and conflicting paradigm. Methodological consistency requires that
neo-Marxists scrap the concept of quantitative efficiency ...[defined by
Gordon as the greatest possible useful physical output from a given set of
physical inputs"]....and revamp the concept of qualitative efficiency
...[defined by Gordon as the ability of the ruling class to reproduce its
domination of the social process of production and minimise producers'
resistance to ruling class domination of the production process]...We define
qualitative efficiency as the maximal extraction of surplus value subject to
alienated labour under the historically specific capitalist mode of production.

This is capitalist efficiency. it does not lend itself to maximisation
calculus. we can only refer to differing degrees of it. the relative degrees
of it are represented by relative rates of s.v. that are achieved by firms
or industries, but these are not measurable. in the exchange sphere they are
represented as unequal rates of profit. a capitalist is operating at less
that capitalist (qualitative) efficiency to the extent that labour manifests
forms of alienation through absenteeism, sabotage, soldiering and trade
union militancy etc.  capitalist behaviour has to be seen in the context of
the conflict b/tw their objectives of accumulation and the subjective
motivations of the workers in the pursuit of their own needs etc. the
exercise of control nust elicit workers' cooperation in the produciton
process. in other words the social relations of capitalist production are
contradictory.

SO Herb, that is what i think it is. You then ask a related question:

>	What is a 'surplus world'?

To which i reply, it is obvious. And i guess what you are saying is that
basic concepts like surplus value are meaningless to you now. In which case
you would surely not identify any notion of capitalist efficiency. in which
case i am curious as to how a few mails ago you can still say your 1970s
article on K-L exchanges which was built on the distinction b/tw labour
power and labour was STILL RIGHT.

For me, obviously, the surplus framework is the key to understanding
exchange relations. without it, i would not be able to see the layers of
analysis that are useful. and without i would not be able to say that
markets are superficial things in a capitalist system.

What do you think is specific about capitalism as a system in history, Herb?
Maybe you don't see anything to differentiate it from other "market" systems.

Further, when I challenged you about your statements like you had seen more
productive systems which were less egalitarian, and vice versa, and
specifically questioned the measurements issues you said that you don't
measure things like productivity using (capitalist) national accounts data,
and then said

>How do you measure productivity?

well how do you conclude what you do? to say you observe various
configurations of productivity/egalitarianism requires measurement and a
conceptual basis.

I also argued that:
>
>>a capitalist market place will never be productive in the sense that the
two dynamic systems of humanity and nature are contemporaneously nourished
and sustained. capitalism as a system of production has no intrinsic soul
when it comes to judging humanity or nature. both are just resources to be
used in the surplusextraction process by a subset of the former. capitalist
production has no morality, no ethics, and has little eye to the future.

You then raised the all important issue.

>	How would you do things differently? That is, what economic
>institutions populate your alternative?

64 million dollar question. first, are you agreeing with the last paragraph
denoted >> which appeared in my last mail? if you are not agreeing with it,
why not say so and argue against it, rather than ask me what alternative
there is. yes it is important to have some map of another plan. but first we
have to work out whether your faith in the market place as an excellent
governance mechanism is based on your rejection of my criticisms summarised
above, or a resolution that you see my points as valid and important, but
you see no other alternative, and like Paul Davidson, you hope for a
civilised outcome to emerge from intervention (the supplementary governance).

kind regards
bill
**************************************************************************
 William F. Mitchell            Telephone: +61-49-215027      .-_|\
 Department of Economics                   +61-49-705133     /     \
 The University of Newcastle    Fax:       +61-49-216919     \.--._/*<--
 Callaghan   NSW  2308                                            v
 Australia                      Email : ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************************************