nathan tankus wrote: > I find it amazing that everyone can blather on about the tendency for the > rate of profit to fall without acknowledging that Marx explicitly said that > his was a simple model that would need disaggregating into rent, unproductive > labor, profit to enterprise, government . "That the fall of the rate of > profit can further be delayed by the omission of existing deductions from > profit, e.g. by a lowering of taxes, reduction of ground rent etc., is > actually not our concern here, although of importance in practice, for these > are themselves portions of the profit under another name, and are > appropriated by persons other than the capitalists themselves"<
As usually stated, the FROP theory works at a high level of abstraction. This quotation brings in more concrete detail, reducing the level of abstraction. Perhaps a lot of people never got to this step because the FROP theory (again, as usually stated) is incoherent. Another possible reason is that some people are "stuck" at a high level of abstraction and can't get out. Juriaann writes: >In the supremely abstract world of Marxist doctrine [that Juriaann perceives] >... anything can mean anything at a certain “level of abstraction”... but I >think that does not lead to good analysis worthy of Marx. Analysis means you >take something concrete, identify its components, and show how they are >related to each other and fit together.< I think that "levels of abstraction" are useful, especially if you make it clear what you're abstracting from (what level of abstraction you're at). It's a mistake to jump to concrete analysis without any abstraction, since that almost always means a lack of understanding. Alternatively, the analyst imposes a theory covertly, often without knowing it (or what the theory is). But abstract analysis can only help with concrete understanding, just as concrete understanding tempers abstract analysis. IMHO with this, Marx agreed. He started at a concrete level, but when he presented his theory in CAPITAL, he started at a very high level of abstraction and then moved through the three volumes to lower levels of abstraction. The first paragraph in the main text of volume III makes this clear. He presents the over-all method is the introduction to the GRUNDRISSE. (Unfortunately, he never finished volume III, so that theorists are stuck with another problem, i.e., incomplete theorizing.) -- 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
