On Feb 7, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
Shane wrote:
An assumption--for purposes only of expositional simplicity--
is not a premise.
Shane,
Many theoretical economists would have no problem saying that their
choice of assumptions is only for "expositional simplicity";
But that is explicitly true of Marx. The expository assumption of
Vol. 1 is that prices correspond to values (even though Marx is
perfectly clear that such is only accidentally the case). In Vol. 3
the assumption is that prices correspond to cost of production (again
explicitly abstracting from deviations from perfect competition). But
neither assumption plays any role in the theoretical derivation of the
Law of the Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit, which is derived
from rising OCC *alone*. The short-run counteracting tendencies are
each then explicated individually. Marx is different from
"theoretical economists" in that the explicit purpose of his work,
uniquely, is "to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern
society." Every law applies generally [the equation representing it
must be present in any set of equations describing the causes that
allow prediction of any particular empirical outcome], whatever the
empirical conditions. I proved the general applicability of Marx's
law, and the falsity of the criticisms repeated in the postings I was
replying to.
...If abstraction is to be taken seriously, the distinction between an
"assumption for expositional simplicity" and a "premise" is one
without a difference.
Arithmetic examples are there for expositional simplicity. The
underlying relations have to be expressed algebraically for a model to
claim generality, as Marx's certainly does. Here simplifying
assumptions involve abstracting from empirically unimportant variables
like (in the falling rate of profit example) the annual rates of
turnover of circulating capital, both variable and constant.
Marx's Law (it should be called LFTRP, not FRP) is premised
on the existence of an upper limit to the amount of surplus labor
available in a working day *whatever the level of real wages*.
The existence of an upper limit to the amount of surplus labor
available in a working day is no assumption, no abstraction. It is
recognition of an absolute reality--that there are twenty-four hours
in a day. The Law reflects the contradiction between an absolute
limit and an absolutely unlimited process--the rising organic
composition of capital.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
