Julio Huato wrote: > Jim wrote: > >> Okishio assumes that real wages stay constant, which is grossly >> unrealistic. Long ago, John Roemer (one of Wolff's chosen few, >> at least for awhile) showed that if real wages rise with labor >> productivity, Okishio's theorem (that profitable technical progress >> raises profit rates) may or may not be true.
> If Okishio's theorem is based on the assumption that wages be > constant, then any reasoning based on the assumption that wages vary > would be X's theorem, but not Okishio's. right: I'll accept that quibble, but Roemer's framework is exactly the same as Okishio's except that real wages vary in the way he describes. If Okishio's theorem is based on a grossly unrealistic assumption and the Okishio-cum-Roemer theorem is more realistic, shouldn't we pay attention to the latter, not the former? or is realism irrelevant? > Marx begins Capital 3:3:13 [volume III, section 3, chapter 13] > by assuming constant wages. If you look at the numerical example at the bottom of the page, it's not wages or real wages that are constant. It's "v," i.e., the amount of variable capital (that's set equal to 100). This suggests that it's the _value of labor-power_ that's held constant. This is the amount of labor needed to reproduce a unit of labor-power. This amount (1) rises with the real wages but (2) falls as the productivity of labor rises in the industry producing wage-goods (sector II). If v is constant, then real wages are _rising_ in step with labor productivity in sector II. That doesn't fit the assumption of constant (real) wages. I'm sure that someone will quibble with that point, but I find the _entire chapter_ to be muddled and confusing. That shouldn't be surprising since Marx never finished writing it. But why should anyone put credence in a "law" that's based on an incomplete, muddled,and confusing argument? Why did the "tendency for the profit rate to fall" become a touchstone of "orthodoxy" when for an earlier generation of Marxists, it was disproportionality that was the "orthodox" theory? Anyway, who is it who decides what's "orthodox"? Has there been a "Pope of Marxism" appointed to replace Kautsky? And why should Marxists have any respect for reasoning that dubs itself "orthodox"? To quote an authority ( ;-) ), Rosa Luxemburg suggested that we should "doubt all." Or in more recent lingo, we should "question authority," especially self-appointed authority. In addition, is there any reason to assume that the counteracting tendencies (see chapter 14) are always overwhelmed by the presumed major tendency (chapter 13)? Why should anyone assume that Marx's list of counter-tendencies is complete? For example, even though capitalist production does tend to become more mechanized over time (raising the technical composition of capital) another thing that happens -- especially after the initial stages of industrialization -- is increases in labor productivity in the sector producing the means of production (sector 1). That latter "counter-tendency" reduces the _value_ of the means of production. This can easily prevent the rise of the _value_ composition of capital. And in calculating the rate of profit, it's the latter that counts, not the technical composition of capital. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
