I wrote:
>BTW, I think it's possible to develop a Marxian theory of the origins
>of profit without equal exchange or even the "law of value." Marx starts
>with a societal perspective, with "capital as a whole" in vol. I of
>CAPITAL and moves in the direction of dealing with individuals and
>individual differences. But I think one can develop of Marxian theory of
>exploitation even starting from an individualistic, neoclassical
>perspective, and then moving toward the societal perspective. (See my
>"Taxation without Representation: Reconstructing Marx's Theory of
>Capitalist Exploitation." In William Dugger, ed. _Inequality: Radical
>Institutionalist Views on Race, Class, Gender, and Nation_. Greenwood
>Press, 1996.) I don't think this would have been possible without Marx's
>work, however. Unlike Roemer, who simply jettisons Marx's methodology and
>reduces Marx's theory of exploitation to a static and formalistic theory
>of scarcity rents, I think that Marx's dialectical method is absolutely
>necessary (though hardly sufficient).
>CB: Now there's an interesting thought. Care to elaborate a little ?
one comment (and then I'm going off-line, due to the work-load):
What's needed to allow Marx-type exploitation in a neoclassical theory are:
1) macro-level subjection of labor by capital, involving the monopolization
of the means of production and subsistence by the capitalists and a
persistent reserve army of labor (structural coercion).
2) micro-level subjection of labor by capital, in which capital almost
always has labor under control. This involves a more sophisticated view of
production than NC economics has.
3) worker's submission, their disorganization and their willingness to
accept this system.
It should be mentioned that at its best, NC economics is simply supply and
demand (not really much of an improvement over Adam Smith's economics). So
what I say doesn't contradict S&D (just as Marx developed his theory in a
way that didn't contradict the assumption of equal exchange). Note also
that I ignore micro-level monopoly most of the time, seeing it primarily as
a matter of redistribution of previously-produced surplus-value.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
