On Marx's _Capital_
The following essay will be the Introduction to The Hobgoblin's upcomingspecial issue on Marx's _Capital_.The Hobgoblin ( http://members.aol.com/THEHOBGOBL ) is aBritish journal of Marxist-Humanism. == Introduction: Marxs Capital in the Struggle for a New Human Society by Andrew Kliman This special issue of The Hobgoblin on Marxs Capital carries three chapters of Raya Dunayevskayas 1958 Marxism and Freedom which analyze and comment on all three volumes of Capital, as well as her late 1970s critiques of Ernest Mandels Introduction to Volume I and of Roman Rosdolsky on Marxs method. Also included are new essays by Dave Black on the concept of value and Chris Ford on the free association of producers. In the face of unprecedented retrogression, the struggle for new human relations continues. A whole new movement against exploitative global capital has emerged, and tens of millions of people worldwide have mobilized in opposition to the U.S. governments permanent war. Yet people engaged in these and other struggles must also struggle daily with an inner enemy, the ever-present spectre of TINA there is no alternative. TINA weighs like a nightmare on our brains, constricting our thought processes and making our brains themselves impose limits upon what we dare to fight for and even to hope for. These self-imposed limits should not be confused with realism and practicality. TINA has led to the resurgence of an unrealistic, almost desperate hope that, though capitalism is here to stay, it can nonetheless be reformed in a fundamental and sustainable way. How else can we account for the renewed popularity of social democracy, even though it collapsed everywhere just as Russian state-capitalism did, unable to sustain itself and its reforms in the face of neoliberal reaction? Moreover, the theoretical basis of calls for fair exchange, more representative international financial and political institutions, living wages, and similar nostrums is, all too often, unrealistic hope that fundamental reform is sustainable. What we need, I think, is a different sort of hope, hope grounded in real possibilities for a better future, and a different sort of thinking dialectical thinking that can help us search out and develop the real possibilities that TINA-think assumes away. Capital continues to deserve careful study as a prime example of revolutionary dialectical methodology in action. Although many leftist theorists today regard the dialectic as an _expression_ of capitals totalizing logic, in Marxs hands the dialectic includes in its positive understanding of what exists a simultaneous recognition of its negation, its inevitable destruction; it regards every historically developed form as being in a fluid state, in motion, and therefore grasps its transient aspect as well; it does not let itself be impressed by anything, being in its very essence critical and revolutionary (Marx, Postface to the 2nd ed. of Capital, Vol. I). Thus, although Mandels Introduction and other commentaries try to divide Marx into a revolutionary and a strictly scientific economist, this division is untenable. From the dual character of the commodity on the first page, to Volume IIIs law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit, the internal contradictions of which produce economic crises, Capitals positive theory of how capitalism functions includes negativity within itself. The systems dualities and internal contradictions are what make it inherently unstable and therefore something humankind can transcend. At each moment, however, discerning how this abstract possibility can become a real one requires a lot of hard thinking. Another reason why Capital continues to have direct implications for political practice is that Marx was taking on ideologies quite similar to those of our day. On the one hand, he combats the TINA-think of bourgeois political economy (there has been history, but there is no longer any). At the same time, he combats the political economy of Proudhon and other leftists who claimed that the ills of capitalism can be ameliorated by reforming monetary, exchange, and financial relations, while leaving the capitalist mode of production intact. This latter dimension of Capital is often suppressed. Some leftists do not want the specificity of Marxs ideas to interfere with their calls for us to unite behind them; others want to attach his name to perspectives and projects that have more in common with the tendencies he fought than with his own ideas. Marx himself, however, continually fought for his specific ideas within the movement, especially once Capital was published and available for all to study. In 1875, the Marxist (Eisenach) and Lassallean political parties in Germany united on the basis of the Gotha Programme. Marxs critique of this Programme complains again and again
Capital class suppressed, teacher expelled
On Feb. 9, the Brecht Forum informed the teacher of its course on Capital, Marx's Capital and Alternatives to Capital, Andrew Kliman, that it does not want him to teach there in the future, and that it would not object to his leaving before the current course was over. The expulsion letter came in response to Kliman's and the class' complaints that the Brecht substantively rewrote the course announcement without his knowledge or consent. The Brecht's version of the announcement hid the fact that the course is a seminar on Capital and, without permission, identified him as having written for NEWS LETTERS. * complete ARTICLE below, and at http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2004/March/teacher_Marchb04.h tm * extensive DOCUMENTATION supporting the charges made in the article available at http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2004/March/docum.html Brian Martin, a courageous fighter against suppression of dissent, notes: Publicity is undoubtedly an extremely potent method of opposing suppression. ... It is vitally important that action be taken against suppression. This is because the most important effect of suppression is ... on others who observe the process. Every case of suppression is a warning to potential critics not to buck the system. And every case in which suppression is vigorously opposed is a warning to vested interests that attacks will not be tolerated. (from his very cool website [http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/]) So please do FORWARD the article and URLs, as a warning to vested interests that attacks will not be tolerated. Thanks NY LEFT INSTITUTION PURGES CAPITAL TEACHER New York -- On Feb. 9, the Brecht Forum informed the teacher of its course on Capital, Marx's Capital and Alternatives to Capital, Andrew Kliman, that it does not want him to teach there in the future, and that it would not object to his leaving before the current course was over. The expulsion letter came in response to Kliman's and the class' complaints that the Brecht substantively rewrote the course announcement without his knowledge or consent. The Brecht's version of the announcement hid the fact that the course is a seminar on Capital and, without permission, identified him as having written for NEWS LETTERS. Such numerous and important changes are by no means 'purely stylistic,' as the Brecht claims, Kliman said. I have never before had text substantially altered like this without consultation. I've never even heard of such a case before. The Brecht has shown itself to be a petty, sectarian institution utterly lacking in intellectual integrity. Kliman had been teaching for a sixth term at the Brecht to an unusually large class of 23. The course has resumed at another location. Teachers at the Brecht Forum, a 28-year-old New York City left educational institution, are not paid. The purged seminar leader is a widely published Marxist-Humanist theorist whose writings have clashed with established Marxist economics. He and others have refuted Marxist economists' alleged proofs of Marx's internal inconsistency. What was Kliman's crime that merited expulsion? Only that he and the class objected to the Brecht re-writing the course description and Kliman's biography without his knowledge and consent for its catalogue, website, e-mail and flyers. The Brecht did this not once, but twice. The rewriting, which disguised the fact that the course was a course on CAPITAL, undoubtedly served to reduce enrollment. Although the Brecht claimed the changes were stylistic, it is known that the administration dislikes Kliman's work and politics. One student reported from personal conversations that leaders of the Brecht were out to get him. During another discussion of the rewriting problem, an influential person at the Brecht complained about Kliman's idealism and expressed disagreement with his recently published Marx's Concept of Intrinsic Value. The three-term seminar emerged out of Kliman's Brecht course on CAPITAL Vols. 2 and 3. He and several students co-wrote the new course's description. Acting on its own, the Brecht changed the course title to Four Questions and removed several points in the description, actions that disguised the fact that the course consists primarily of a close reading of Vol. 1. In addition, Kliman's biography was changed by removing references to his prior Brecht teaching, dropping some of his publications, and adding that he had published in NEWS LETTERS. When this happened last fall, Kliman objected privately, and the Brecht sent out the correct version of the course description to its email list. Yet when the winter publicity appeared, the description had again been modified, and the Brecht's rewrite of Kliman's bio again replaced his own. This occurred even though he had asked the Brecht not to alter the text without his permission. Kliman and the class then requested a correction, an apology, and assurance that such re-writing would not occur
Re: Capital class suppressed, teacher expelled
Michael, Why do you characterize this as an internal dispute, rather than a matter of freedom of expression? Does this mean you will not be supporting my right to teach and not to have my course announcements tampered with? Andrew -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Capital class suppressed, teacher expelled I would not like us to get involved in internal disputes. It will lead to no good. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
FW: Value Theory Website: apologies for cross-posting
The website of the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT) has moved to www.iwgvt.org The site gives free access to over 150 papers on value theory and related topics covering eleven years of debates at IWGVT mini-conferences, held annually under the auspices of the Eastern Economic Association. Papers from two sessions of the Greenwich conferences on Critical Political Economy, and many guest papers, are also available. The IWGVT welcomes contributions and papers relevant to its aims and in conformity with its scholarship guidelines, both of which may be found on the site. We can be contacted at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Book on Value
The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economicsedited by Alan Freeman, Andrew Klimanand Julian WellsFebruary 2004, Edward Elgar Publishing, 352pp,£69.95 or $110 17 papers + editors' introduction, IWGVT Scholarship Guidelines, bibliography, and indexContributors: Paresh Chattopadhyay, Edward B. Chilcote, W. Paul Cockshott, Paul Cooney, Allin F. Cottrell, Ann Davis, Massimo De Angelis, Alan Freeman, Rebecca Kalmans, Andrew Kliman, David Laibman, Ted McGlone, Stavros D. Mavroudeas, Fred Moseley, Michael Perelman, Alejandro Ramos Martinez, Bruce Roberts, Mario L. Robles-Baez, and Julian Wells See below for * excerpts from editors' introduction and book jacket * whatRob Garnett, Fred Lee, Bertell Ollman, Barkley Rosser, andRick Wolff think of this book*ordering information From the book jacket This sequel to Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics introduces the key advances in modern value theory. Leading authors with contrasting theoretical viewpoints debate equilibrium and non-equilibrium approaches, abstract labour and money, and provide an invaluable introduction to the rapidly growing body of new work in these fields.The authors cover cutting-edge topics in value theory including gender and money, crisis theory, the impact of technology, skilled and complex labour, and the effect of international transfers of value.All of the papers in The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics concentrate on new research. The mathematical content is minimal, allowing both active researchers and new students to introduce themselves to the burgeoning critical reappraisal of the foundations of Twentieth Century economic thinking. == Endorsements"Marxian value theory has experienced a new surge of interest, interpretations, and dispute since the end of the Cold War. A considerable amount of this dispute has centered on the Temporal Single-System Interpretation (TSSI). This volume brings together in one place most of the leading participants in these discussions,... [providing] comprehensive coverage of this debate This is clearly the definitive volume on controversies over Marxian value theory available at this time." -- J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., James Madison University, USA "This book assembles - in an impressively undogmatic and theoretically self-conscious way - an excellent set of mutually engaged articles. Well chosen to highlight the central claims and debates surrounding them, the articles document the dramatic recent renewal of Marxian value theories, extend them provocatively to important issues, and thereby effectively challenge Marxian economics' censorious exclusion from the academic mainstream." -- Richard D. Wolff, University of Massachusetts, USA "This rich set of essays breathes new life into Marxian economics by demonstrating the range and veracity of Marx's theory of value as well as a steadfast commitment to open dialogue and fair-minded debate on these fundamental issues. As practiced here, value theory is a vehicle for rigorous analysis and conversation within and across paradigms. This alone is an enormous contribution to heterodox economics and to contemporary economics at large, where questions of value are enduringly central yet rarely discussed in a cogent and pluralistic manner." -- Robert F. Garnett, Texas Christian University, USA "A well focused debate over the key issue in Marx's economics by some of the world's leading Marxist economists. I can't think of a better way (or work) to introduce students to the intricacies of Marx's value theory and the controversies it has spawned. Highly recommended!" -- Bertell Ollman, New York University, USA "This volume promotes an open dialogue between the Temporal Single-System (TSS) versus the traditional-Sraffian interpretation of Marx's labor theory of valueIt is by moving towards a critical Marxist pluralism, the editors believe, that Marxist scholarship will be lifted from its current hidebound stupor. Questioning tradition and providing the basis of an alternative, The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics is a book that all heterodox economists should read." --Frederic S. Lee,University of Missouri, Kansas City, USA == From the editors' introduction The papers in this volume represent the first response by Marxist scholars to the Temporal Single-System Interpretation (TSSI) of Marxs value theory. The TSS interpretation is controversial because it challenges a prior consensus within Marxist scholarship. It confirms the logical coherence of Marxs theoretical results without correcting or replacing Marxs own presentation of his own views. By any objective standard, the significance of these findings is enormous. The charge of inconsistency is a central pivot of the suppression of Marx by mainstream economics. Without it, no rational basis for excluding his work remains. The alleged inconsistencies or
FW: Reminder: 11th Value Theory Conference at the EEA February 20-22 2004
Please forward to interested parties: Dear all This is to remind you of the upcoming IWGVT value theory conference at the EEA in Washington DC, at the Hyatt Regency on February 20-22 2004. We can accept abstracts up to 20th December at which time we must provide the EEA organisers with a list of our sessions. If you would prefer to receive no mail concerning this event in future please reply letting us know and accept my apologies for the inconvenience. Cordially Alan Freeman Andrew Kliman = CALL FOR PAPERS 11th ANNUAL MINI-CONFERENCE ON VALUE THEORY Hyatt Regency, Washington DC, February 20-22 We invite you to the eleventh mini-conference of the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT), to be held as part of the Eastern Economic Association (EEA) conference. Papers relating to the conference aims which address the IWGVTs interests are welcome. A summary of these, and full instructions on paper submissions including our scholarship guidelines, is attached. Abstracts of individual papers are welcome. The final deadline for abstracts is December 20th 2003. To foster pluralistic and critical dialogue, papers should conform to IWGVT scholarship guidelines. For further information e-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED], or Andrew Kliman at [EMAIL PROTECTED], or consult our website at www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt, which also contains past papers. Our new website at www.iwgvt.org is under construction and will shortly be available. Full text of call attached 04-call.doc Description: MS-Word document
REMINDER: Capital course in NYC, from 10/13
CAPITAL, MARX'S _CAPITAL_, AND ALTERNATIVES TO CAPITAL A THREE-TERM SEMINAR LED BY ANDREW KLIMAN Mondays, 7:309:30 p.m., starting on October 13, 2003 At the Brecht Forum, 122 West 27th St., 10th floor, New York, NY (212) 242-4201. Tuition on sliding scale. Although we now have a mass movement which opposes global capitalism and holds that Another world is possible, few have turned to Marxs writings to help gain an in-depth understanding of what capitalism is and whether proposed alternatives are actually viable. Yet _Capital_ is a book which Marx wrote for the workers, and which in his view showed that the present society is no solid crystal, but an organism capable of change, and constantly engaged in a process of change. This full-year (3-term) seminar will grapple with the following questions Can capitalism be reformed for the better?, Is market socialism a viable alternative?, What specific social and economic changes are necessary if humanity is to free itself from the power of capital?, and Is such freedom possible? In order to help answer these questions, we will undertake a close reading of Volume I of _Capital_ in conjunction with parts of other works by Marx that treat these questions _The Poverty of Philosophy_, _A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_, and the Critique of the Gotha Program. Writings of more recent thinkers, including critics of Marx, will also be examined. The seminar is therefore primarily a class on _Capital_, but not on the book in general. We will read it specifically as a book about the above questions. All seminar participants are expected to do the readings for each class and to take their turn in making presentations and leading the discussion. No prior knowledge of _Capital_ is necessary or expected, though those who have read it before are welcome to participate. Participants are urged to buy the Ben Fowkes translation (available as a Penguin or Vintage paperback) so that we can easily refer to selected passages. Photocopied selections from other works will be made available at cost. For the first sessions reading, or more information, please write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . * * * * Andrew Kliman teaches economics at a local college. At the Brecht Forum, he has recently taught courses on Volumes II and III of _Capital_, Marxs commentaries on _Capital_, and economic crisis and crisis theory. He is co-editor of the forthcoming collection _The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics_, and his work has appeared in the _Cambridge Journal of Economics_, _Capital and Class_, _Historical Materialism_, _Research in Political Economy_, and elsewhere. His latest project is a book-length critique of radical political economics.
Upcoming Capital course in NYC
Please note that the wrong title and wrong description of this seminar appear in the Brecht Forum's schedule of events and on its website. THE ANNOUNCEMENT BELOW IS THE CORRECT ONE. Please feel free to forward it. Indeed, I would appreciate folks forwarding it in order to help rectify the Brecht Forum's error. Thanks, Andrew Kliman == CAPITAL, MARX'S _CAPITAL_, AND ALTERNATIVES TO CAPITAL A THREE-TERM SEMINAR LED BY ANDREW KLIMAN Mondays, 7:309:30 p.m., starting on October 13, 2003 At the Brecht Forum, 122 West 27th St., 10th floor, New York, NY (212) 242-4201. Tuition on sliding scale. Although we now have a mass movement which opposes global capitalism and holds that Another world is possible, few have turned to Marxs writings to help gain an in-depth understanding of what capitalism is and whether proposed alternatives are actually viable. Yet _Capital_ is a book which Marx wrote for the workers, and which in his view showed that the present society is no solid crystal, but an organism capable of change, and constantly engaged in a process of change. This full-year (3-term) seminar will grapple with the following questions Can capitalism be reformed for the better?, Is market socialism a viable alternative?, What specific social and economic changes are necessary if humanity is to free itself from the power of capital?, and Is such freedom possible? In order to help answer these questions, we will undertake a close reading of Volume I of _Capital_ in conjunction with parts of other works by Marx that treat these questions _The Poverty of Philosophy_, _A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_, and the Critique of the Gotha Program. Writings of more recent thinkers, including critics of Marx, will also be examined. The seminar is therefore primarily a class on _Capital_, but not on the book in general. We will read it specifically as a book about the above questions. All seminar participants are expected to do the readings for each class and to take their turn in making presentations and leading the discussion. No prior knowledge of _Capital_ is necessary or expected, though those who have read it before are welcome to participate. Participants are urged to buy the Ben Fowkes translation (available as a Penguin or Vintage paperback) so that we can easily refer to selected passages. Photocopied selections from other works will be made available at cost. For the first sessions reading, or more information, please write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . * * * * Andrew Kliman teaches economics at a local college. At the Brecht Forum, he has recently taught courses on Volumes II and III of _Capital_, Marxs commentaries on _Capital_, and economic crisis and crisis theory. He is co-editor of the forthcoming collection _The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics_, and his work has appeared in the _Cambridge Journal of Economics_, _Capital and Class_, _Historical Materialism_, _Research in Political Economy_, and elsewhere. His latest project is a book-length critique of radical political economics.
Re: Kids and Uncle Karl
Imagine, a 4-year-old who could invert an A matrix. -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of andie nachgeborenenSent: Monday, June 16, 2003 3:44 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Kids and Uncle Karl The globe spinning and pointing out Iraq didn't really register, nortalk of oil reserves, nor power and influence... But oppression did. (Ididn't use that word, but she grasped it.)* * * Years ago I was stuck in traffic due to roadwork withmy daughter,then aged about 4(now 13), and to pass the time, and to explain that roads are made and not grown, I asked her, "Hannah, what are those workers doing?" I expected an answer like, Digging, or Dumping gunk in the street, orMaking a road, or some such. ? Without missing a beat, and with no prompting whatsoever, she said, "They're being exploited." After I got my breath back, I gasped, "Yes, they are producing surplus value, but what, physically, are they doing with their hands?" She looked at me with scorn and pity. "Digging the road, Daddy." (Anyone could see that!) jks Do you Yahoo!?SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Re: Value
First, with permission, is Rakesh Bhandari's message, followed by my reply: AJK -Original Message- From: Rakesh Bhandari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 2:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Value Hence, declining prices (or even a decline in their growth rate), including declines caused by technological advances, *must always* lower the average profit rate, cet. par. The decline in output prices causes a subsequent decline in input prices, which tends to negate the fall, but a subsequent new fall in prices (or their growth rate) tends to negate the negation. Andrew, this is a compelling vision of the capitalist process. If possible, could you speak to this bit of skepticism? If prices are falling, then wouldn't capitalists anticipate that the capital goods which they are using up will become cheaper and thus reduce their depreciation allowances? If depreciation allowances are reduced, then couldn't even the nominal profit rate rise even as output prices decline? Moreover, couldn't real profit rise in the sense that a constant nominal sum will be able to purchase a greater quantity of use values as unit prices decline? In fact, couldn't real profit rise so much that capitalists could still have trouble locating profitable investment outlets for their income after depreciation and their own consumption? Yours, Rakesh = Yes, they *might* cut depreciation charges, which would boost measured profit (I wouldn't call this nominal profit, though, because it's not the opposite of inflation-adjusted). But I believe that standard practice is to amortize, over a number of years, the full expense of machines, etc., that was originally incurred. Profit is what's left over after expenses, and the expenses are the original costs, not the replacement costs, of machines, etc. To reflect what is really happening to the profit rate, i.e., the rate of growth (self-expansion) of capital, depreciation charges should *increase* when prices are falling, because of moral depreciation. There are losses of capital-value, and before they can be wiped off the books and thereby boost the profit rate by lowering its denominator, they must FIRST be charged against profit, lowering the profit rate by depressing its numerator. But measured profit rates are another matter. That's one reason why I continually stress that trends in measured profit rates have little to do with the law of the tendency of the profit rate to fall, and that theoretical reflection on measured profit rates is a dubious exercise. couldn't real profit rise in the sense that a constant nominal sum will be able to purchase a greater quantity of use values as unit prices decline? It's true, by definition, that a constant monetary sum will always be able to purchase a greater quantity of use values when unit prices decline. But again, profit is what's left over after expenses, and the expenses are the original costs, not the replacement costs, of machines, etc. Consider the following example (from Andrew Kliman and Alan Freeman, Rejoinder to Duncan Foley and David Laibman, _Research in Political Economy_ 18, 2000): [Imagine a company that produces computers by means of computers, which] borrowed $1000 a year ago, and used it to buy one computer in order to produce two computers, completed today. If the new computers are worth $500 each, the firms net worth has increased not a whit. (Since interest is due, its net worth has in fact declined.) Its earnings are zero, not only in money terms, but also in real, physical, terms: it has no resources with which to expand its production. The rate of profit that reflects this situation accurately is the 0% monetary rate, not the 100% material rate [or replacement cost rate]. If the firm goes out and borrows another $1000, it can now buy 2 input computers at $500 each, and produce (say) 4 output computers. But if the price of the latter is $250 each, we have the same situation as before, except that the interest charges are mounting. And so on. We also said the following about real profit: The decline in the value of goods and services relative to the denominated value of debt that we have depicted debt deflation is a crucial determinant of economic crises, as the recent Asian crisis has made clear. Marx (1968, p. 496) was acutely aware of this, as are both Laibman and Foley. What we wish to stress here, in regard to the real/nominal distinction, is a point that Mervyn King (1993, emphasis added) of the Bank of England has made: 'debt deflation is a real not monetary phenomenon, and is concerned with a change in relative prices. It is the change in the distribution of net worth from debtors to creditors which leads to a fall in demand and output.' THE REALITY OF VALUE We do concur wholeheartedly with Foley that the monetary rate of profit is not the only thing that matters. '[I]t would not be very satisfactory to argue that the falling rate of
Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
I realize you made no reference to machines, Jim. I was providing an example. And the effect of productivity increases that are not accompanied by falling prices is not at issue. The issue is: what is the effect of productivity increases that *are* accompanied by falling prices? I had written: If increases in productivity imply falling prices, ceteris paribus, and if falling prices imply falling profit rates, ceteris paribus (which they do), then In opposition to this, you replied If input prices (per unit of output) fall and output prices stay constant, profits rise. My example was a way of illustrating what was wrong with your reply. Output prices must fall BEFORE input prices fall. Hence, declining prices (or even a decline in their growth rate), including declines caused by technological advances, *must always* lower the average profit rate, cet. par. The decline in output prices causes a subsequent decline in input prices, which tends to negate the fall, but a subsequent new fall in prices (or their growth rate) tends to negate the negation. Thus continual technological change that leads to continual declines in prices (or their growth rate) can permanently depress profitability. The preceding paragraph says what the machine example said. But the example also demonstrated *why* output prices must fall before input prices fall. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 9:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value I wrote: My assertion wasn't based on Okishio or anything like that. It was based on accounting. If input prices (per unit of output) fall and output prices stay constant, profits rise. Drewk writes: Right, Jim. But if *output* prices (per unit of output) fall and *input* prices stay constant And the latter must always be the case *before* the former can be the case. That's important. E.g., the price of machines falls during period t. ... but I made no reference to machines. I had written: But if labor productivity rises (or wages fall) before prices fall, the first thing to happen would be a rise in the rate of profit (likely temporary). Jim
Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value Jim Devine wrote: "I agree that price falls _can_ cause falls in profitability." Good. "But I don't see why "Output prices must fall BEFORE input prices fall."" Because the input prices that are relevant to profit and profit rate computations are prices of earlier times than the output prices. E.g., investments are made at time t; sales of output occur at time t+1. Profits and the profit rate are computed for the time span between t and t+1. If prices fall between t and t+1, the fall affects the sales revenue of this period, but not the input prices of *this* period. It affects input prices of the period t+1 to t+2. "A counter-example: it happens all the time that production is sped up -- raising output per unit of labor-power hired and thus lowers cost per unit of output (given the wage rate) -- which has the immediate effect of raising profits." This isn't a counter-example. That is, it is not an example of input prices falling before output prices. It is an example of a fall in per-unit costs that is not accompanied by a fall in prices. Again, the impact of technological changes that do not trigger price reductions is obvious, and not at issue. "I don't see why we should assume that "continual technological change" exists. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't." Technological change is always occurring at some firm in some industry. At least the situation is close enough to"always" to make this a reasonable abstraction. Andrew Kliman -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Devine, JamesSent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 1:39 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value I agree that price falls _can_ cause falls in profitability. But I don't see why "Output prices must fall BEFORE input prices fall." A counter-example: it happens all the time that production is sped up -- raising output per unit of labor-power hired and thus lowers cost per unit of output (given the wage rate) -- which has the immediate effect of raising profits. After all, businesses do not simply cancel out their profit-seeking actions by cutting prices in step (or more)! Over time, however, as the speed-up becomes general in the industry, prices will likely fall, counteracting the initial profit boost. This example doesn't suggest that prices should fall enough to actually hurt profits in the end. I don't see why we should assume that "continual technological change" exists. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Jim
Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
Jim, I think the problem we're having is definitional. I think you are calling any decline in the cost of some input, per unit of output, a decline in the input price. E.g. last year and this year, a firm lays out the same amounts of money for the same amount of iron and the same number of workers, but more output is produced this year than last year. I think you are calling this a fall in the price of iron and the price of labor, a fall in 2 input prices. Yes? In the terminology I've learned, the input price is the amount of money laid out per unit of *input*. Hence I would say that neither input price changes in this example. There is a fall in the cost of iron per unit of output and the cost of labor per-unit of output (aka unit iron cost and unit labor cost), but the fall is not due to a change in the *price* of iron or labor. In any case, I *think* we agree that in a case like this -- one in which technological progress does not cause a change in prices-in-my-sense -- the profit rate will rise. I think this is what you've been saying. Yes? But if technological progress *does* cause a fall in prices-in-my-sense, then my argument is that it must first cause a fall in output prices-in-my-sense (the amount of money laid out by buyers per unit of output) before it can cause a fall in input prices-in-my-sense. So it must first lower the average profit rate, and continuous technological change that causes a continuous fall in prices-in-my-sense can cause the profit rate continually to be depressed. What say you? One more thing: I do not see how it is possible for technological progress to lead to a fall in wages, a fall in the price-in-my-sense of labor, unless it is by means of a fall in the price-in-my-sense of wage goods. If the latter do fall, then what I'm saying is that the capitalists who sell these wage goods suffer a decline in their profit rate before the capitalists who benefit from the lower wages experience a boost to their profit rates. Rakesh Bhandari has written privately about a relat4ed matter that I'd like to discuss on-list, but I first want to try to clear up the confusion that exists between Jim and me. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 5:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value [I'm sorry. By mistake, I sent this before I had finished. What follows is the finished version.] I wrote: I agree that price falls _can_ cause falls in profitability. Drewk: Good. I continued: But I don't see why Output prices must fall BEFORE input prices fall. [quoting Drewk] Drewk: Because the input prices that are relevant to profit and profit rate computations are prices of earlier times than the output prices. E.g., investments are made at time t; sales of output occur at time t+1. Profits and the profit rate are computed for the time span between t and t+1. If prices fall between t and t+1, the fall affects the sales revenue of this period, but not the input prices of *this* period. It affects input prices of the period t+1 to t+2. me: we're talking past each other. Not only was I discussing operating costs rather than capital costs, but have different models at play. I was talking about the common sense of business: it's possible to cut operating costs (prime labor costs and raw material costs) per unit while keeping prices from falling, boosting profits per unit (for awhile). You are talking about capital costs -- and are assuming some sort of model in which the fall in output prices (the subject of this thread) is linked by some sort of general (dis)equilibrium model to the later fall in input prices. That makes sense for the production of raw materials and intermediate goods: the capitalists who produce iron _lose_ from falling iron prices before the capitalists who produce steel _gain_, so that the average profit rate for both groups would fall (at least in the initial period). However, it doesn't make sense for the commodity labor-power: the initial loss due to fall in wages (or the speeding up of the labor process) would be taken by the workers -- and would thus not be part of the calculation of the average profit rate and so would not depress that rate. Instead, from the capitalist point of view, it's a total gain (unless wage declines cause social disorder and the like) until later, if and when competition drives prices down in line with the decline of wages. --- I wrote: A counter-example: it happens all the time that production is sped up -- raising output per unit of labor-power hired and thus lowers cost per unit of output (given the wage rate) -- which has the immediate effect of raising profits. Drewk: This isn't a counter-example. That is, it is not an example of input prices falling before output prices. It is an example of a fall in per-unit costs that is not accompanied
Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
Chris Burford wrote: the marxian law of value, probably cannot be falsified, but may be true. The only empirical study I know about it is by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell showing that it could fit with macroeconomic data, I think for Scotland if I recall correctly. There have been numerous studies like this (not only by Cockshott and Cottrell, but also by Ochoa, Shaikh, Petrovic, Guerrero, Maniatis Tsoulfidis, and others). But their results are not meaningful. The strong cross-sectional correlations they find are SPURIOUS CORRELATIONS, correlations that stem only from their failure to control for variations in industry size. (It is not surprising, nor meaningful, that the total value of output and the total price of output are both large in large industries and small in small industries.) Once one DOES control for variations in industry size, the correlations between values and market prices simply disappear. I found this, using US data, in a study published in the Cambridge Journal of Economics last year. More recently, Rubn Osuna has found the same thing, using Spanish data, in a study that's part of his superb dissertation on the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory. The references are: Kliman, Andrew J. 2002. The law of value and laws of statistics: sectoral values and prices in the US economy, 197797, _Cambridge Journal of Economics_, vol. 26, 299-311 Osuna Guerrero, Rubn. 2003. _Un Modelo Secuencial para el Clculo de Precios. El Caso Espaol 1986-1994_. Ph.D. dissertation, Departamento de Anlisis Econmico I, Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas y Empresariales. Universidad Nacional de Educacin a Distancia (UNED), Spain. However, properly understood, the law of value does generate a falsifiable hypothesis that has not been falsified: productivity increases tend to reduce commodities' prices. My preliminary computation for the US during the past 1/2 century indicates that a 1 percentage point increase in multifactor productivity leads, ceteris paribus, to almost exactly a 1 percentage point decline in the CPI. Andrew Kliman
Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
Doug Henwood wrote: 1) Would bourgeois economists disagree that higher productivity means lower prices? That's Wall Street common sense for sure; what about the higher economics? Yes, it's the common sense on the Street and at the Fed. I think most everyone would actually agree, but there's an implication of this relationship that they run away from like the plague. If increases in productivity imply falling prices, ceteris paribus, and if falling prices imply falling profit rates, ceteris paribus (which they do), then High theory always or almost always circumvents the productivity-price linkage by construction. The high theorists use numraires, or value inputs and outputs simultaneously. In the former case, the numraire's prices cannot change due to anything. In the latter case, no price can change between time of input and time of output. 2) Why have prices increased over the long term despite constant increases in productivity? Ceteris has not been paribus. I suspect that the main factor is excessive credit expansion, fueled in part by central bank policy and deficit financing. The tendency for the rate of profit to fall has been displaced; rather than crises that take the form of falling prices and/or output levels, we often have debt and fiscal crises. 3) Why do value theorists find it harder to agree among themselves than do bourgeois economists? It has to do with the sociology of knowledge production. If one is a careerist, conformity is generally the ticket to success. Most mainstream economists don't really believe in what they say or write. They go with the flow. Plus, especially in economics, conformity is enforced, forcibly, in all kinds of ways -- journals' selection criteria, hiring criteria, journal rankings, reconfiguring of departments (as in the Notre Dame case), etc. The lack of agreement among value theorists is a reflection of sharp political divisions (e.g., Stalinism, social democracy, liberatory Marxism), sharp philosophical divisions (much of Marxian economics has been a long effort to re-do Marx without the Hegel), sharp divisions between those with careeerist-professionalist orientations and others, etc. Raya Dunayevskaya characterized our age as the age of counter-revolution within the revolution. This is reflected in the theoretical realm as well. It is partly because we *do* believe in what we say and write, and partly because none of the camps any longer have the kind of material resources that are needed to enforce conformity, that the divisions are sharp. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value Drewk wrote: However, properly understood, the law of value does generate a falsifiable hypothesis that has not been falsified: productivity increases tend to reduce commodities' prices. My preliminary computation for the US during the past 1/2 century indicates that a 1 percentage point increase in multifactor productivity leads, ceteris paribus, to almost exactly a 1 percentage point decline in the CPI. Three questions: 1) Would bourgeois economists disagree that higher productivity means lower prices? That's Wall Street common sense for sure; what about the higher economics? 2) Why have prices increased over the long term despite constant increases in productivity? 3) Why do value theorists find it harder to agree among themselves than do bourgeois economists? Doug
Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
Jim Devine wrote: Drewk, thanks for the references and the useful critique of CC, Ochoa _et al_. De nada. if it turned out that there was perfect correlation between values and prices, it would be a strike against Marx's LOV. I agree. 1. for Marx's LOV, shouldn't it be labor productivity that affects prices, not the multifactor productivity? (In my opinion, MFP is a bogus concept. It's based on adding apples (labor-power hired) and oranges (means of production) using weights that assume that each factor is paid its marginal product.) Marx's notion of labor productivity refers to total labor, dead plus living. I didn't use the BLS labor productivity series because it refers to living labor only. I thought that MFP would be a better proxy for Marx's notion. Perhaps not, in light of your comment. Do you think the marginal productivity assumption causes sizeable distortions? 2. isn't it commonplace for economists to say that productivity increases lead to price falls, cet. par.? Yes. (See also my reply to Doug Henwood.) 3. how did you deal with the fact that most time series tend to be highly correlated with each other even when causation is absent? Well, I was using the 1st-differenced data, i.e., inflation rate, productivity growth rate, and real GDP growth rate as a control. And the correlation is negative in this case, so I doubt that there's a spurious regression problem here. But I didn't run a formal test, which is one reason why I say my estimate is preliminary. Andrew Kliman Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Drewk, thanks for the references and the useful critique of CC, Ochoa _et al_. I'll have to look at your paper. As mentioned, for me the law of value involves not only some correspondence between relative values and relative prices -- expecially on the aggregate level -- but also deviations (so that people inside the system don't see how capitalism is actually working). So if it turned out that there was perfect correlation between values and prices, it would be a strike against Marx's LOV. As for your macro-correlation between multifactor productivity and the CPI, I have some questions: 1. for Marx's LOV, shouldn't it be labor productivity that affects prices, not the multifactor productivity? (In my opinion, MFP is a bogus concept. It's based on adding apples (labor-power hired) and oranges (means of production) using weights that assume that each factor is paid its marginal product.) 2. isn't it commonplace for economists to say that productivity increases lead to price falls, cet. par.? 3. how did you deal with the fact that most time series tend to be highly correlated with each other even when causation is absent?
Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
Jim Devine wrote: But if labor productivity rises (or wages fall) before prices fall, the first thing to happen would be a rise in the rate of profit (likely temporary). I don't think so. Greenspan, Brenner, and others tell this story, but it is based either on a fallacy of composition (the innovator's profit rate rises, therefore the general rate rises) or on the Okishio theorem, which is false. If you do not retroactively revalue inputs, as the theorem does, then the decline in price will tend to offset the increase in physical productivity, and it can more than offset it. The profit rate can't tell good deflation from bad deflation. Whatever the cause of falling prices is, the fall itself reduces profitability, cet. par. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value Drewk writes: If increases in productivity imply falling prices, ceteris paribus, and if falling prices imply falling profit rates, ceteris paribus (which they do), then doesn't it matter what comes first? if prices fall (say, due to rising international competition due to a high US$ exchange rate), that would squeeze profit rates. But if labor productivity rises (or wages fall) before prices fall, the first thing to happen would be a rise in the rate of profit (likely temporary). Jim
Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
Jim Devine wrote: My assertion wasn't based on Okishio or anything like that. It was based on accounting. If input prices (per unit of output) fall and output prices stay constant, profits rise. Right, Jim. But if *output* prices (per unit of output) fall and *input* prices stay constant And the latter must always be the case *before* the former can be the case. That's important. E.g., the price of machines falls during period t. At the end of period t, the revenue received by machine producers falls. Input prices of period t -- prices of inputs acquired at the start of period t, or before -- cannot change because they are a thing of the past. So there is a fall in the machine producers' profit rate, and therefore the general rate, of period t. In period t+1, the input price of machines falls (since it is the output price of period t). This *tends* to raise the profit rate of period t+1. But if there's another fall in the price of machines, or of anything else, during period t+1, it will partially, fully, or more-than-fully offset the benefit of cheaper machines. Thus it is possible for the general profit rate of period t+1 to be lower than the starting rate, and possible lower than that of period t as well. And the same goes for periods t+2, t+3, etc. So continuous productivity increases can cause profitability to be permanently depressed. Marx was right about this. Andrew Kliman Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 2:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value Jim Devine wrote: But if labor productivity rises (or wages fall) before prices fall, the first thing to happen would be a rise in the rate of profit (likely temporary). I don't think so. Greenspan, Brenner, and others tell this story, but it is based either on a fallacy of composition (the innovator's profit rate rises, therefore the general rate rises) or on the Okishio theorem, which is false. If you do not retroactively revalue inputs, as the theorem does, then the decline in price will tend to offset the increase in physical productivity, and it can more than offset it. The profit rate can't tell good deflation from bad deflation. Whatever the cause of falling prices is, the fall itself reduces profitability, cet. par. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value Drewk writes: If increases in productivity imply falling prices, ceteris paribus, and if falling prices imply falling profit rates, ceteris paribus (which they do), then doesn't it matter what comes first? if prices fall (say, due to rising international competition due to a high US$ exchange rate), that would squeeze profit rates. But if labor productivity rises (or wages fall) before prices fall, the first thing to happen would be a rise in the rate of profit (likely temporary). Jim
RE: Re: Speaker Wanted
What is this about? I have students who want to learn something. They are adults doing this on their own time -- not for college credit -- and that means something in New York, where people have very little spare time. Adults, grappling with a hundred dense pages of reading a week! You want to talk about something unrelated, and in a language they (and not only I) don't understand -- essentially to disrupt the class. Why? Why? By the way, my purpose is not to get tenure. I have tenure. I'm not even being paid to teach this class. The purpose of the debate is to enable my students to hear both sides of two century-old controversies. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sabri Oncu Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 11:08 PM To: PEN-L Subject: [PEN-L:34515] Re: Speaker Wanted Andrew : (1) Marx's account of the transformation of values into production prices has been proven to be internally inconsistent or in error. SNIP I am looking for someone willing to argue *in favor* of one or both of these propositions. I will be arguing against them. How about this? You find that someone and invite me as a third debater. I will argue against both him/her and you by bringing the topic of Western Rationality to the front. Moreover, I will do that in Turkish so that neither of you will be able to reply back. Alternatively, I can argue for (or against) the second law of thermodynamics, if you like. You pick whether I should be for or against. I am against the second law, though. Thermodynamics is in such a mess. In these days, I am discovering that the contract theory is no better. If I catch that guy who invented this game theory, he will see! As a Russian saying goes: Dogs bark, the convoy continues! We need to start thinking about what we mean by science before it is too late! If you want to know what I mean, just go to a university library near you. You will see that the number of books and journals, scientific or otherwise, are growing exponentially, like a cancer. Does anyone know or remember what the original purpose was? Best, Sabri
10th annual IWGVT miniconference on value theory
The 10th annual (!) International Working Group on Value Theory miniconference will take place on February 21-22 as part of the Eastern Economic Association conference. The miniconference will be held in New York City at the Crowne Plaza Manhattan Hotel, located at 1605 Broadway between 48th and 49th Streets. These are the miniconference sessions: ** roomFriday, February 21, 11:00 am [36] CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC CRISES [JEL Code E] International Working Group on Value Theory Session 1 Session Organizers: Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich (UK) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Session Chair: Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Argentina's Descent into the Abyss Paul Cooney, Independent Economist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Argentina and the Future of Neoliberalism Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich (UK) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ** roomFriday, February 21, 4:00 pm [76] DYNAMICS OF CAPITAL AND VALUE International Working Group on Value Theory Session 2 Session Organizers: Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich (UK) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Session Chair: Alan Freeman Modeling Dynamic Equilibrium in Capital Markets Joseph F. Johnson, University of Notre Dame ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) On the Identity of Value and Labour: A Defence of Intrinsic Value Philip Dunn, Independent Economist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ** roomSaturday, February 22, 9:00 am [96] EMPIRICAL STUDIES [JEL Code E] International Working Group on Value Theory Session 3 Session Organizers: Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich (UK) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Session Chair: Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) The Credit Card Industry and the U.S. Business Cycle Piruz Alemi, American Express ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) The Derivation of Classical National Accounts Bruce Cronin, University of Greenwich (UK) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) On the Spuriousness of Sectoral Price-Value Correlations Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ** roomSaturday, February 22, 11:00 am [116] DYNAMICS OF CAPITAL ACCUMULATION [JEL Code E] International Working Group on Value Theory Session 4 Session Organizers: Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich (UK) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Paul Cooney, Independent Economist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) The Cheapening of Constant Capital and the Brenner Debate Ann Davis, Marist College ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) A New Theory of Savings and Debt Deflation Michael Hudson, University of Missouri Kansas City ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Brenner's Crisis Theory and its Self-styled 'Value-Theoretic' Critics Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ** roomSaturday, February 22, 2:00pm [136] MONEY, VALUE, AND UNEQUAL EXCHANGE [JEL Code E] International Working Group on Value Theory Session 5 Session Organizers: Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich (UK) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Session Chair: Ann Davis, Marist College ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Unequal Exchange Revisited Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich (UK) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) On the Theoretical Significance of Marx's Ambivalences Towards Classical Political Economy John Milios, National Technical University of Athens (Greece), ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Two Three-Sided Stories of the Golden Age in a TSSI Approach Nick Potts, Southampton Business School (UK), ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ** roomSaturday, February 22, 4:00 pm [156] LABOR AND THE MEDIA [JEL Code J] International Working Group on Value Theory Session 6 Session Organizers: Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich (UK) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Andrew Kliman, Pace University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Session Chair: Nick Potts, Southampton Business School (UK), ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Smashing Televisions (video presentation) Dimitri Devyatkin, Independent Video Artist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Show Me the Labor In It (multi-media presentation) Peggy Powell Dobbins, Independent Sociologist/Artist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Transformations in Capital Accumulation Juan Iñigo Carrera, Independent Economist ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Speaker Wanted
I am teaching a course on Marx's _Capital_, Vols. II and III at the Brecht Forum in New York City. Although most of the sessions are strictly on the texts, a couple will be devoted to Critiques and Defenses of Marx. To make things fair, balanced, evenhanded, I am interested in conducting such sessions as debates. The questions to be debated are: (1) Marx's account of the transformation of values into production prices has been proven to be internally inconsistent or in error. (2) It has been proven that, contrary to what Marx's theory states, the effect of technological progress cannot be to lower the general rate of profit. I am looking for someone willing to argue *in favor* of one or both of these propositions. I will be arguing against them. The first topic will be discussed on March 20. The tentative date for the second is April 17. The class runs 2 hours (5:30-7:30 p.m.). Each side will have equal time, and I am flexible about other conditions. I can also pay reasonable travel expenses to New York. Please write to me if you're interested in taking the opposing side in the debate. If you know someone else who you think may be willing to take the opposing side in the debate, please ask them to write to me. Thanks, Andrew Kliman
redistributionist liberals
Well, thank god someone -- Chris Burford -- got to the point: whether left wing political economy should primarily be about fairer distribution. In emphasizing liberalism with his caps -- redistributionist LIBERALS -- Alois was right. Andrew Kliman
RE: New Course in NYC on CAPITAL, Vols. II III
Winter-Spring 2003 Class at the Brecht Forum MARX'S _CAPITAL_, VOLUMES II and III Andrew Kliman 16 weekly sessions (8 per semester) beginning January 30 Thursdays, 5:30-7:30 pm. At the Brecht Forum 122 West 27th St., 10th floor New York, NY (212) 242-4201. Tuition is $65-$95 (sliding scale). Course Description === Marx regarded _Capital_ as a theoretical blow to the bourgeoisie from which they will never recover. This two-semester course will similarly emphasize how a rigorous theoretical understanding of capital can aid the ongoing challenges to global capitalism. Volumes II and III of _Capital_ complement and complete the analysis begun in Volume I. Volume II situates Volume Is analysis of the immediate process of capitalist production within the circulation and reproduction processes. Volume III endeavors to show that real-world phenomena do not contradict, but are forms of appearance of, the essential relations and categories developed in Volume I. We will begin with a user-friendly, 5-week survey of Volume II, focusing on the circuits of capital, the concept of productive labor, and the reproduction schemes. The remaining 11 weeks will be devoted to Volume III, and will concentrate on the appearance of surplus-value as profit; the distribution of surplus-value within the capitalist class; Marxs law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit and crisis theory; and his argument that capitalisms production relations (and not only its relations of income and wealth distribution) are historically specific and transitory. We will also explore Marxists and non-Marxists objections to Marxs reproduction schemes, his account of the transformation of values into production prices, and his theory of the falling profit rate. For more information, or to obtain a syllabus and readings for the first session, contact the instructor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Instructor == Andrew Kliman teaches economics at a local college, and has recently taught courses on Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory and Marxs Commentaries on Capital at the Brecht Forum. His writings on Marxs critique of political economy have appeared in _Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics_, _Capital and Class_, _Historical Materialism_, and elsewhere. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CIRCULATE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT
People power in Kenya--talk by new Kenyan MP
All is Possible without Moi PEOPLE POWER DEFEATS TYRANNY IN KENYA a talk by KOIGI WA WAMWERE newly elected member of the Kenyan Parliament SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 7 p.m. At African Services Committee 429 West 127th St. New York, NY 10027 (between Morningside and Amsterdam; if coming from Amsterdam, turn east onto 126th St., from which 127th St. forks off mid-block) The long-time ruling party of dictator Daniel arap Moi was ousted from power in Kenyas recent election. Grass-roots supporters of the new coalition government called their campaign people power and raised the slogan All is Possible without Moi. Among those elected to the new parliament was KOIGI WA WAMWERE, a political activist and writer who has been fighting for human rights and social change for three decades. He won a landslide victory in Subukia constituency, and is one of the few radical leftist Kenyan politicians who offer hope of a new future for Kenyans. Although a member of the party in power, NARC, he is maintaining a dissenting voice to challenge the government to end corruption, redistribute land, and implement its promises to the Kenyan people. Wa Wamwere was imprisoned in Kenya five times between 1975 and 1996, spending a total of thirteen years in prison, including periods during which he was tortured. His execution was averted only by the combined efforts of the Norwegian government and human rights activists around the world. His autobiography, I Refuse to Die, My Journey for Freedom was recently published in the U.S. by Seven Stories Press. It documents the brutality of the colonial years, the roots of the Mau Mau rebellion, the evolution and degeneration of Jomo Kenyatta and the rise of Daniel arap Moi. Talk followed by free and open discussion, and celebration! Co-sponsors: News and Letters New York Committee, (212) 663-3631 African Services Committee, (212) 222-3882 _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
New Course in NYC on CAPITAL, Vols. II III
Winter-Spring 2003 Class at the Brecht Forum MARX'S _CAPITAL_, VOLUMES II and III Andrew Kliman 16 weekly sessions (8 per semester) beginning January 30 Thursdays, 5:30-7:30 pm. At the Brecht Forum 122 West 27th St., 10th floor New York, NY (212) 242-4201. Tuition is $65-$95 (sliding scale). Course Description === Marx regarded _Capital_ as a theoretical blow to the bourgeoisie from which they will never recover. This two-semester course will similarly emphasize how a rigorous theoretical understanding of capital can aid the ongoing challenges to global capitalism. Volumes II and III of _Capital_ complement and complete the analysis begun in Volume I. Volume II situates Volume Is analysis of the immediate process of capitalist production within the circulation and reproduction processes. Volume III endeavors to show that real-world phenomena do not contradict, but are forms of appearance of, the essential relations and categories developed in Volume I. We will begin with a user-friendly, 5-week survey of Volume II, focusing on the circuits of capital, the concept of productive labor, and the reproduction schemes. The remaining 11 weeks will be devoted to Volume III, and will concentrate on the appearance of surplus-value as profit; the distribution of surplus-value within the capitalist class; Marxs law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit and crisis theory; and his argument that capitalisms production relations (and not only its relations of income and wealth distribution) are historically specific and transitory. We will also explore Marxists and non-Marxists objections to Marxs reproduction schemes, his account of the transformation of values into production prices, and his theory of the falling profit rate. For more information, or to obtain a syllabus and readings for the first session, contact the instructor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Instructor == Andrew Kliman teaches economics at a local college, and has recently taught courses on Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory and Marxs Commentaries on Capital at the Brecht Forum. His writings on Marxs critique of political economy have appeared in _Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics_, _Capital and Class_, _Historical Materialism_, and elsewhere. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CIRCULATE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT
RE: Re: RE: Sweezy's occ
Title: Re: [PEN-L:31644] RE: Sweezy's occ "this approach can never give a theoretical groundingto the "Law of the Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit" because under it there is no necessity for the productivity of labor to tend to increase less rapidly than capital intensity. Shane Mage is right about this, even thoughphysicalists try to deny it. Disaggregated data in fact seem to indicate a rising ratio of output to physical "capital" over time. BTW, does anyone know of any decent (or half-decent) measures of capital *advanced* or *invested*, in flow-of funds terms, as opposed to quasi-physical measures of the value of the "capital stock"? Or if it is feasible to construct such measures? What is needed is essentially the running total of capital spending minus the running total of depreciation charges and write-offs. Andrew Kliman
RE: RE: Sweezy's occ
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31627] Sweezy's occ I think Sweezy just wanted a linear result, Mat. The profit rate is a linear function of his q, but not of Marx's value composition. Something like Sraffa's obsession with a linear wage rate/profit rate relation. Andrew
Reminder: Class in NYC on Marx
Please note: Because the printed Brecht Forum catalog came out so late, you can still enroll in this class even if you missed the first session. The next (2nd) session is on Tuesday, October 15. AJK Fall 2002 Class at Brecht ForumMARX'S COMMENTARIES ON "CAPITAL"Andrew Kliman6 sessions beginning October 11st 3rd Tuesdays of the month, 7:30-9:30 pm.At the Brecht Forum,122 West 27th St., 10th floor, New York, NY(212) 242-4201.Tuition is $45-$65 (sliding scale).Course Description===Karl Marx's Capital continues to provide unique insights into contemporary global capitalism and the possibilities for social change. Yet the book is a difficult one and there persist many debates about what it means. Wouldn't it be great to hear -- from the author himself -- what he intended?We will focus on two writings by Marx that shed great illumination on Volume I:(1) "Results of the Immediate Production Process," about 140 pages long, was originally intended as the book's concluding chapter. Drawing conclusions from his analysis of capitalist production, Marx discusses machine production as the real subsumption of labor under capital, alienated labor, productive vs. unproductive labor, and capitalists as the personification of capital.(2) "Notes on Adolph Wagner," about 40 pages long, is his response to the German economist's 1879 critique of Capital. Marx sharply separates his own understanding of "commodity," "value," and "exchange-value" from what he regarded as Wagner's misinterpretations, and offers insightful comments on the method of Chapter 1.The course is designed especially for folks who have read Volume I of Capital, but who want to gain a deeper understanding. Those who are currently reading it, or who wish to read portions of it concurrently with Marx's commentaries, are also welcome.Students should read Section I of "Results" (at the end of the Penguin/Vintage edition of Capital, Vol. I) for the first class. For other readings and the course syllabus, contact the instructor at [EMAIL PROTECTED]InstructorAndrew Kliman teaches economics at a local college, and has recently taught a course on "Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory" at the Brecht Forum. His writings on Marx's critique of political economy have appeared in Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics, Capital and Class, Historical Materialism, and elsewhere.
RE: military ricardianism
Ian Murray wrote yes, I'm copyrighting the term..., evidently a reference to military ricardianism. I like it, it's catchy; but I don't get it, I'm afraid. Can you please explain it, Ian?
FW: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy
Title: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy, Sep.11, 02 RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy Fundamentalism is the Enemy of All Civilized Humanity RAWA joins with the rest of the civilized world in remembering the innocent lives lost on September 11th, as well as all those others lost to terrorism and oppression throughout the world. It is with great sadness that RAWA sees other people experiencing the pain that the women, children and men of Afghanistan have long suffered at the hands of fundamentalist terrorists. For ten long years the people of Afghanistan -Afghan women in particular- have been crushed and brutalized, first under the chains and atrocities of the "Northern Alliance" fundamentalists, then under those of the Taliban. During all this period, the governments of the Western powers were bent on finding ways to "work with" these criminals. These Western governments did not lose much sleep over the daily grind of abject misery our people were enduring under the domination of these terrorist bands. To them it did not matter so very much that human rights and democratic principles were being trampled on a daily basis in an inconceivable manner. What was important was to "work with" the religio-fascists to have Central Asian oil pipelines extended to accessible ports of shipment. Immediately after the September 11 tragedy American military might moved into action to punish its erstwhile hirelings. A captive, bleeding, devastated, hungry, pauperized, drought-stricken and ill-starred Afghanistan was bombed into oblivion by the most advanced and sophisticated weaponry ever created in human history. Innocent lives, many more than those who lost their lives in the September 11 atrocity, were taken. Even joyous wedding gatherings were not spared. The Taliban regime and its al-Qaeda support were toppled without any significant dent in their human combat resources. What was not done away with was the sinister shadow of terrorist threat over the whole world and its alter ego, fundamentalist terrorism. Neither opium cultivation nor warlordism have been eradicated in Afghanistan. There is neither peace nor stability in this tormented country, nor has there been any relief from the scourges of extreme pauperization, prostitution, and wanton plunder. Women feel much more insecure than in the past. The bitter fact that even the personal security of the President of the country cannot be maintained without recourse to foreign bodyguards and the recent terrorist acts in our country speak eloquent volumes about the chaotic and terrorist-ridden situation of the country. Why is it so? Why has the thunderous uproar in the aftermath of September 11 resulted in nothing? For the following reasons which RAWA has reiterated time and again: 1. For the people of Afghanistan, it is "out of the frying pan, into the fire". Instead of the Taliban terrorists, Jihadi terrorists of the "Northern Alliance" have been installed in power. The Jihadi and the Taliban fundamentalists share a common ideology; their differences are the usual differences between brethren-in-creed. 2. For the past more or less twenty years, Osama bin Laden has had Afghan fundamentalists on his payroll and has been paying their leaders considerable stipends. He and Mullah Omar, together with a band of followers equipped with the necessary communication resources, can live for many years under the protection of different fundamentalist bands in Afghanistan and Pakistan and continue to plot against the people of Afghanistan and the rest of humankind. 3. The Taliban and the al-Qaeda phenomena, as manifestations of an ideology and a political culture infesting an Islamic country, could only have been uprooted by a popular insurrection and the strengthening and coming to power of secular democratic forces. Such a purge cannot be effected solely with the physical elimination of the likes of Osama and Mullah Omar. The "Northern Alliance" can never sincerely want the total elimination of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda, as such elimination would mean the end of the raison d'être of the backing and support extended to them by foreign forces presently dominant in the country. This was the rationale behind RAWA's slogan for the overthrow of the Taliban and al-Qaeda through popular insurrection. Unfortunately, before such popular insurrection could come about, the Taliban and al-Qaeda forfeited their positions to the "brethren of the 'Northern Alliance'" without suffering any crippling decimation. With their second occupation of Kabul, the "Northern Alliance" thwarted any hopes for a radical, meaningful change. They are themselves now the source and root of insecurity, the disgraceful police atmosphere of the Loya Jirga, rampant terrorism, gagging of democracy, atrocious violations of human rights, mounting pauperization,
RE: RE: FW: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy
Title: RE: [PEN-L:30185] FW: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy Jim Devine wrote:"I remember someone giving me a hard time on pen-l because I referred to Osama bin Laden and Taliban as "clerical fascists." It's not a perfect analogy, but few are." Idon't think it is a mere analogy.I heard a talk by Reza Afshari, a historian and human-rights specialist (with whom I work), in which he pinpointed a direct genealogical link. Apparently, one of the main developers of Islamic fundamentalist ideology borrowed heavily from andcredited the writings of a fascist physician (from France, who emigrated to the U.S). Unfortunately, I've forgotten both their names. In any case, it is an important point that fundamentalism is at least partly a modern, "Western" import, and not -- contrary to common portrayal -- thetraditional,indigenousideology of the people.
10th Value Theory Conference, CFP
CALL FOR PAPERS 10th ANNUAL MINI-CONFERENCE ON VALUE THEORY Crowne Plaza Manhattan Hotel, February 21-23, 2003 This year we celebrate an important milestone the tenth annual mini-conference of the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT). In the face of an increasingly hostile intellectual and political environment during the last decade, the IWGVT has established itself as a force for academic freedom and critical pluralism within economics, including within radical economics. We invite you to participate. The mini-conference will take place within the Eastern Economic Association (EEA) conference, at the Crowne Plaza Manhattan Hotel, 1605 Broadway, New York City, from February 21 to 23, 2003. The mini-conference will have three main foci: * We celebrate our 10th year. * We strongly encourage graduate students to present papers and participate. * In light of the recent global plunge in share prices, we especially welcome papers that assess the current state and possible future trajectories of the world economy. Other papers consonant with the IWGVTs aims and policies are also welcome. To foster pluralistic and critical dialogue, papers should conform to the IWGVT scholarship guidelines. Our aims, and full instructions on paper submissions including our scholarship guidelines, are discussed in the full version of the Call (attached as a Word document). Abstracts of individual papers are welcome from September 10th onwards. The final deadline for abstracts is November 1, 2002. The final deadline for completed papers is January 20, 2003. Final acceptance is conditional on papers being provided by this deadline. To contact us: For further information, e-mail us ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]), or consult our website at www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt , which also contains past papers. '03 IWGVT Call.doc Description: MS-Word document
demo vs. water privatization in S. Africa
SOUTH AFRICA: STOP ARRESTING ANTI-PRIVATIZATION DEMONSTRATORS AND STOP PRIVATIZING WATER DEMONSTRATE AND PETITION AT THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONSULATE New York City 333 East 38th Street (between 1st and 2nd Aves.) Manhattan THURSDAY AUGUST 15 - 12:00 noon to 1:00 pm On August 15th members of the Anti Privatization Forum will go on trial for a demonstration held outside the home of the Mayor of Johannesburg. Many of the people involved are poor South Africans who had their water or electricity turned off. When their nation's public utilities were turned over to private companies, water and electricity prices rose and many could not pay. In northern Kwazulu-Natal province, two thirds of the people on one water system had their water shut off. Many improvised by taking water from the river. The result was a cholera epidemic with thousands of reported cases and hundreds of deaths. We will ask the South African government to: Drop the charges against the demonstrators who protested water and electricity cut-offs. -Stop handing public utilities over to private companies. We recognize that powerful foreign governments, international corporations, and institutions like the International Monetary Funds pressure nations to privatize their valuable resources. Their arguments and threats may have been difficult to resist back when the ANC first came to power. But by now, privatization and deregulation have been discredited all around the world. Even in the United States, Enron led energy deregulation nearly wrecked California's economy. When forty billion dollars was added to the profits of private energy trading companies, the citizens had to pick up the bill. In the U.S. this doesn't produce the same kind of desperate misery as in South Africa. But it has left the rich and mighty state of California too poor to extend health care or to keep up its once famous schools and universities. In poor and rich countries alike, private companies, freed from regulation, have taken the money and run. They do not reinvest to expand or improve essential public services they take over. They also degrade the environment as they deliver the energy and water the cheapest way for the greatest profit. That after all, is a corporate director's legal mandate. For these reasons privatization of essential services is being opposed and discontinued all over the world. In accord with this global awakening, we will ask the South African government to stop arresting the anti privatization protesters and start follow their economic advice instead. Further information contact Barbara Garson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sponsors: DAN (Direct Action Network), New York News and Letters Committee, West Side Local of Green Party of NY (list in formation)
RE: Thus sprach Marx: interpretation or characterization?
Gil Skillman writes: In your post, you (a) impute to me an argument I've never made, suggesting that you hadn't actually read what I wrote, Not so. You may have *interpreted/characterized* (What's the diff? Characterization is the act of putting an interpretation into words, no?) it that way, but what I wrote was If the conclusion is that surplus-value can arise only if commodities exchange at their values, it is indeed invalid. Surely there is another possible, and indeed a better, interpretation/characterization, namely that, given my use of If, I was commenting on one possible interpretation of your remarks, as well as seeking clarification as to your intended meaning. But all right, I'll accept this criticism and claim only that I argued... rather than pointed out... Good; we may be getting somewhere. I am offering more than simply an interpretation of what Marx argues, I'm offering a *characterization* of what he has argued, See my parenthetical queries above. both in the body of chapter 5 and in the final footnote where he recapitulates the main part of the argument in summary form, Marx argues that surplus value must be explained on the basis that commodities exchange at their respective values, on the grounds that price-value disparities are not of themselves *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus value. This is a characterization of what he *did* say in Chapter 5. I take it you do not deny that he makes this claim (perhaps among others). I do deny it. I briefly re-read the relevant part of the chapter and did not come across what I could construe as a claim that the disparities are insufficient. (Clearly his argument entails the conclusion that they are insufficient, but that's a different matter.) Much more importantly, as I've noted, I deny that he *grounds* his conclusion (regarding what must be assumed, and that it must be assumed) in that insufficiency. I also assert that nowhere in the chapter does Marx make an argument one way or the other as to whether price-value disparities are under any conditions *necessary* for the existence of surplus value. Ok. I had written: First, I object to the term pointed out. What you did was (a) *assert* logical invalidity and (b) offer an *interpretation* under which his argument seems to be logically invalid. So what is at fault? The text? Or your interpretation? It seems to me, and to basically everyone who has thought about interpretive adequacy, that when a text seems not to make sense, the initial presumption (as Georgia Warnke puts it) must be that the critic has misunderstood it. Gil replies: You're assuming that which you cannot possibly know, i.e. that I didn't make just such an initial presumption when I first advanced this argument ten years or so ago. This strikes me as a presumption at least equal in audacity to that implicit in using the phrase pointed out rather than asserted. I assumed no such thing. You are jumping to conclusions. You are assuming that your *interpretation/characterization* of my statement is correct. Surely there is another possible, and indeed a better, interpretation/characterization, namely that I was saying that I AND OTHER READERS should not take the critic's (your) claim to have pointed out logical invalidity at face value, but should initially presume that the critic's (your) interpretation (/characterization) results from a misunderstanding of the text. At any rate, I have given at length, in this forum and many others, my grounds for now rebutting this presumption. I doubt that those who have thought about issues of interpretative adequacy would deny that this initial assumption is indeed rebuttable by criticisms made in good faith, which is what I understand myself to be offering. If this means that the text may not make sense, and that it is possible in principle to show this, I agree. (Note that the If indicates that I'm not imputing this meaning to you. I'm guessing, and commenting on a possible interpretation/characterization I've guessed.) I had written: The value theory debate would generate more light and less heat if Marx's critics would respect this point and practice a little humility. Instead of saying one has proved this error, pointed out that claim to be logically invalid, etc., one could simply say that one has not yet succeeding in reading the text in such a way that it makes sense. That would invite others to work together to try to read text in such a way that it does makes sense. Of course, one advances one's career by drawing attention to others' insufficiencies, not by drawing attention to one's own. But if one's goal is to further knowledge, not advance one's career, the less spectacular but more objective and modest way of putting things is preferable. Gil replies: If there's heat being generated here, it's certainly not by me. Pointing out that the argument is logically invalid isn't generating heat? Come on. A
RE:
Gil Skillman wrote: "Now, clearly Marx isn't saying this assumption [exchange of equivalent values] "has to be" made, "must" be imposed, to satisfy the demands of etiquette, or on ethical grounds, or because somebody will break your legs if you don't; Marx is saying that this conclusionis *logically* entailed by the argument he develops in the chapter. And as I pointed out, this argument is logically invalid. If the conclusion is that surplus-value can arise only ifcommodities exchange at their values, it is indeed invalid. Butthis isn't what he said. He said thatexchange of equivalents must be assumed, not because surplus-value cannot arise otherwise, but "IN ORDER TO OBSERVE the phenomenon of the formation of capital on the basis of the exchange of commodities IN ITS PURITY..." (my emph.) And he said that this mustbe the starting point of analysis because the implications of the contrary assumption reduce to those of the exchange of equivalent values, and thusthe contrary assumption doesn't move the analysis forward. Andrew Kliman
RE: Thus sprach Marx
I wrote that Marx (1) said that exchange of equivalents must be assumed, not because surplus-value cannot arise otherwise, but IN ORDER TO OBSERVE the phenomenon of the formation of capital on the basis of the exchange of commodities IN ITS PURITY... (my emph.) and (2) said that this must be the starting point of analysis because the implications of the contrary assumption reduce to those of the exchange of equivalent values, and thus the contrary assumption doesn't move the analysis forward. Gil Skillman responded: I know he said this. And I pointed out that the argument on which he bases this claim is logically invalid. First, I object to the term pointed out. What you did was (a) *assert* logical invalidity and (b) offer an *interpretation* under which his argument seems to be logically invalid. So what is at fault? The text? Or your interpretation? It seems to me, and to basically everyone who has thought about interpretive adequacy, that when a text seems not to make sense, the initial presumption (as Georgia Warnke puts it) must be that the critic has misunderstood it. The value theory debate would generate more light and less heat if Marx's critics would respect this point and practice a little humility. Instead of saying one has proved this error, pointed out that claim to be logically invalid, etc., one could simply say that one has not yet succeeding in reading the text in such a way that it makes sense. That would invite others to work together to try to read text in such a way that it does makes sense. Of course, one advances one's career by drawing attention to others' insufficiencies, not by drawing attention to one's own. But if one's goal is to further knowledge, not advance one's career, the less spectacular but more objective and modest way of putting things is preferable. Gil's interpretation of the argument on which [Marx] bases his allegedly invalid claim is presumably that price-value disparities are not of themselves *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus value. I have a different interpretation of the argument (in _Capital_ I, Ch. 5). As I interpret Marx, he is not (merely) saying that price-value disparities are not of themselves *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus value. He is saying, as I've already put it, that the implications of unequal exchange (for the problem at hand) *reduce to* those of the exchange of equivalents. Thus analysis leads us back to the exchange of equivalents. It is owing to this regression that the exchange of equivalents is the necessary starting-point of the investigation. I believe that under my interpretation, the argument is not invalid. Andrew Kliman
Econ. Crisis Class in NY
Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory Andrew Kliman Ted McGlone 6 sessions beginning April 16, 2002; 1st 3rd Tuesdays of the month. At the Brecht Forum, 122 West 27th St., 10th floor, New York, NY, (212) 242-4201. Tuition is $45-$65 (sliding scale). Course Description = The worlds major economies are caught in a synchronized recession. Argentinas economy, until recently the richest in Latin American, is in free fall. Living standards have plummeted in the Third World for two decades. This class will explore why capitalism is rocked by recurrent economic crises and why, despite its continual technological revolutions, it is unable to create prosperity for all. To understand contemporary phenomena, we will focus on Karl Marxs crisis theory, but also survey the major radical and mainstream alternatives. The differing political implications of these theories will be stressed throughout. We will also address the current debate over whether Marxs crisis theory is internally inconsistent. The class is designed for both newcomers to crisis theory and those with prior knowledge. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to obtain readings for the first class. A syllabus is available upon request. Instructors == Andrew Kliman and Ted McGlone teach economics at local colleges. Klimans work on Marxs crisis theory and critique of political economy has appeared in Capital and Class, Historical Materialism, Research in Political Economy, etc. During the last few years, McGlone has taught several Brecht Forum classes on the revolutionary dialectic in the philosophies of Hegel and Dunayevskaya.
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I thank Ken Hanley for his thoughtful and interesting post. I think we are getting somewhere. Ken: I see that I have indeed misunderstood your remarks. However, you still seem to commit a petitio since in reply you insist that what you identify as a fallacy is such when that is part of the issue As I understand it, a petitio principii refers to an invalid argument. I agree that if what I wrote is taken as an argument, it begs the question. But I'm not sure that I made an argument. I thought I was just asserting (without support) that the analogy exemplifies the fallacy. I didn't think an argument was required because I thought (and think) that I had already provided the argument. The fallacy is a fallacy because a premise is missing. I don't see that an analogy can refute this kind of argument. At most, it can make us suspect that there *might be* an error in the argument. Ken: In the first sentence I was not reading can't as a logical can't but I gather that is what you intend, that there is an internal inconsistency that entails that what is said cannot be true. Yes, that was my intent. (The sentence in question is If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It was part of my defense of the statement, earlier in my post, that The people who claim(ed) to prove that Marx committed these errors and such actually just have methodological, philosophical, and other disagreements with him. They have not proven what they claim to prove -- *internal inconsistency*, i.e., that Marx does not 'make sense within [his] own framework.') Ken: By the way if there is simply an error in Keyne's, on a certain interpretation, the claim would surely be more accurate that what he said was not true as a matter of fact. There may not be any logical inconsistency. Doesn't it depend on the case? Some critics claim he was wrong about the way things are; others claim that the General Theory doesn't hang together on its own terms -- e.g., because one cannot coherently affirm the classical doctrine of labor supply while rejecting the classical doctrine of labor demand. Ken: I agree that there is a sense in which if there is some other possible interpretation according to which what is said is not inconsistent this would be sufficient to disprove the claim that what Keynes or Marx or whomever said can't be true. I assume this is what making sense is supposed to mean. Good! Yes, by making sense I meant what you say, given that we're talking about what is said as a whole. I don't think that an interpretation which resolves an apparent inconsistency in argument A, but leaves or creates inconsistencies in arguments B, C, ... disproves a claim that a (whole) theory is internally inconsistent. Ken: I read can't as meaning extremely unlikely or implausible, in conflict with what seems well established. I didnt think of it as logically impossible which is what you seem to mean. I look at the gas gauge and it shows almost empty. That can't be right I say because I just filled it up last night. Well of course it could be. I could have had my gas stolen etc. That sort of can't. Yes, I agree that this is another sense of can't, as the word is actually used. But it isn't what's meant when Marx's (or Keynes') theory is alleged to be internally inconsistent. Anyway, I see now why you thought I was referring to Keynes' claims about reality rather than to the internal inconsistency of his theory. Ken: That being so your interpretation of my remarks as exhibiting your fallacy is incorrect because I am not using can't as you understand it. I don't see this. Your analogy disclosed that, IF one interprets can't as you did, what I said was in error. The analogy was evidently meant to show that I did make an error. It didn't show this because it didn't establish that your interpretation of my use of can't was correct. Ken: 1) It seems to me that you impose a too stringent requirement when you require that a person prove that their interpretation is correct as a precondition to claiming correctly that there is an inconsistency in what someone says and so it cant be true. Why? Ah! You're right. I *wrote* If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right, but I *meant* If you claim TO PROVE that Ken: a) In some cases there may be universal agreement what is the correct interpretation and so proof would seem unnecessary at least until such time that someone presents an objection. This seems right to me. The point I was *trying* to make is that proof of internal inconsistency requires proof of the correctness of the interpretation under which there is internal inconsistency. (I realize there is an exception -- cases in which whether something is internally consistent is independent of how the something is interpreted. This is
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Here's why Ken Hanly's supposed analogy is ludicrous. 1. I was dealing with cases in which there are various possible interpretations of what someone said. In Ken's analogy, by assumption, there are not various possible interpretations of what someone (X) says. Rather, there are various interpretations of certain other events. This is not a reductio ad absurdum. It is a bait and switch. (What's the Latin for bait and switch?) 2. I indicated that it was illegitimate to use one possible interpretation of what Keynes said to conclude that s/he can't be right. To arrive at that conclusion, one needs to show that there is *no* interpretation possible under which what Keynes said is right. Nothing I wrote states or implies that the existence of another interpretation proves that the first interpretation is incorrect. In Ken's analogy, however, the existence of another interpretation (according to which X's statement makes sense) supposedly disproves his own interpretation of X. Another bait and switch. 3. Nothing I wrote states or implies that the existence of another interpretation proves that Keynes' critics are wrong about the substantive matter. In Ken's analogy, however, the existence of an interpretation of objective events according to which X is not necessarily wrong about the substantive matter supposedly disproves Ken's claim that X is wrong. Still another bait and switch. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough in the power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them when they go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of believers in Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of Shazam claims that this is just my interpretation. There is another interpertretation to the effect that those who were harmed did not believe strongly enough in Shazam. So the believer in Shazam has proved that my intepretation is incorrect since there is another intepretation in which the defender of Shazam's view makes sense ---and this disproves my claim. Cheers, Ken Hanly If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense.
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Ken Hanly's post (see below) is a PERFECT example of the fallacy I pointed to. I wrote: If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, 'here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc.' There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. Ken has interpreted my comment and has used his interpretation to construct what he apparently thinks is an analogy. The analogy discloses that, under his interpretation, what I said was in error. Ergo, Ken suggests, I made an error. But this doesn't wash, because he hasn't shown that his interpretation of my comment is correct. It isn't. In fact, it is ludicrous. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough in the power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them when they go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of believers in Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of Shazam claims that this is just my interpretation. There is another interpertretation to the effect that those who were harmed did not believe strongly enough in Shazam. So the believer in Shazam has proved that my intepretation is incorrect since there is another intepretation in which the defender of Shazam's view makes sense ---and this disproves my claim. Cheers, Ken Hanly If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense.
New Book on Marx's Capital
Please feel free to circulate this announcement Just Published in Italian, English, and Spanish: UN VECCHIO FALSO PROBLEMA: La trasformazione dei valori in prezzi nel Capitale di Marx AN OLD MYTH: The transformation of values into prices in Marx's Capital Published by the Laboratorio per la Critica Sociale, Rome, 2002. 190 pages; paperback. Essays by Guglielmo Carchedi, Alan Freeman, Paolo Giussani, Andrew Kliman, and Alejandro Ramos. Edited with a Preface by Luciano Vasapollo. The Preface and essays appear in both Italian and English, except for Ramos', which appears in Italian and Spanish. Vasapollo is a member of the faculty of the University of Rome - La Sapienza. He is also the Scientific Director of CESTES (Center for Studies of Socio-economic Transformation) and _Proteo_, a thrice-annual review published by CESTES-PROTEO and the Federazione Nazionale delle Rappresentanze Sindacali di Base (RdB), a 50,000-member trade union. If you are outside of Italy, and wish to obtain a copy of _Un Vecchio Falso Problema/An Old Myth_, please send a check for $15 US (which covers postage as well) to Andrew Kliman Dept. of Economics Pace University Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] From the back cover: 'Some of the essays appearing in this book (by Carchedi, Freeman and Kliman) have recently been published in PROTEO (a scientific journal for the analysis of socio-productive dynamics and labor politics) in order to focus again on an old, false problem: Marx's transformation of values into prices. The purpose of this book's essays is not only to prove that this is a non-existent problem, but also that Marx's theory is a coherent whole held together by its own internal logic. If one introduces a different logic into his system, one is bound to find logical contradictions. Since temporalism is an integral part of this logic, all criticisms, all contradictions, and all solutions to the contradictions based on simultaneism are alien to Marx's theory (and to reality). Leaving aside their specific features, the above-mentioned theories share one common feature, that of ascribing a problematic to Marx that is not his own. As a result, they all end up by fudging the issues. Maybe there are problems in Marx, maybe not. But if there are problems in Marx, they are not the pseudo-problems pointed to by his critics. These pseudo-problems have been, and continue to be, regarded as real ones for very clear political reasons. If the logical coherence of the transformation procedure, and thus of Marx's labor theory of value, is vindicated, Marxism's unrivaled power as a tool to understand, and hopefully change, capitalist reality can be fully deployed. If, on the other hand, one presents redefinitions of Marx's basic concepts as his own concepts, discovers contradictions, proposes solutions, and in doing so smuggles into Marx's theory the notion that capitalism tends towards equilibrium, the power of that tool will be circumscribed within capitalism's own confines.' [Translated from the Italian] From Luciano Vasapollo's Preface: - 'The works of the temporal approach are systematically introduced here for the first time in the Italian debate. Thus a lacuna is filled that will help the Marxists, but especially the Italian academic world, to emerge from their provincialism. FROM NOW ON, THERE CAN BE NO EXCUSE FOR CONTINUING TO IGNORE THE TEMPORAL APPROACH. THOSE WHO DO SO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO APPEAL TO THEIR IGNORANCE, BUT WILL BE FORCED TO ADMIT TO HAVING AN INTERESTED INTERPRETATION.' [Translated from the Italian]
some methodological issues
Justin wrote: Andrew, I haven't the energy or inclination to debate with you or Charles on the matter. I've read your work and learned from it, but I don't agree. -- No one is asking you to agree with any matter of substance. I don't care whether you do or not. Theory is not a popularity contest. Truth is not a popularity contest. I'm merely asking Marx's critics to retract their false claims to have proven that his work is internally inconsistent, etc. If you've read my work, you know that's what it is about. You also know it because I keep repeating it here. -- I really do not understand why you and Michael keep raising the issue of agreement/disagreement, even though I never discuss it and I keep saying that it's not what's at issue. Surely you would agree that one can retract false charges of internal inconsistency without thereby conceding that the one so charged is right with respect to matters of substance? Surely you would consider it improper to demand that one first *convince* critics about substantive matters before one is entitled to retractions of false charges of internal inconsistency? Justin wrote: I came to the conlusion that, so far as I could understand it, the Sraffan criqtique was about right, and it dovetailed with my own conclsuion that as far as I could see, you can say everything I wanted to say in Marx without value theory, That was not arrived at by an internal critique but by the experience of saying it without VT. -- Say what you want, the way you want. No one is stopping you, *especially* not I. All I ask is that your opinions be labeled as your opinions, and not Marx's, nor Marx's-opinions-when-the-internal-inconsistencies-are-cleared-off. -- I do not accept the last argument, the argument from experience -- not because I'm pigheaded or dogmatic -- but because it incorrectly presupposes either that you cannot be guilty of self-contradictory views, or at least that you would already have experienced (and corrected) a self-contradiction in your views had there been any. I deny that. If one admits that one's views might be self-contradictory, then appeal to experience isn't good enough. The views must be *tested* to see if they do contain a self-contradiction. -- For instance, I don't know whether you think surplus-labor is the sole source of profit, and I don't care whether you do or not. But let's assume for the sake of argument that you do think so. Let's also assume that you define profit and surplus-labor in terms of simultaneous valuation. That is self-contradictory. The self-contradiction isn't obvious, and you're unlikely ever to *experience* it as a contradiction, but I've proved that it's a self-contradiction. Justin: I still am not taht interested in VT, but I'm not going to admit defeat; lots of people I respect, including Gil, seem to agree with me, and I will defer to them. If I was more interested, I'd try again. But I suspect that nonething anyone could say would sway you. -- You'd be surprised at what will sway me. I used to dogmatically accept what my teachers and the experts say, namely that Marx's transformation procedure contained an internal inconsistency. Then a friend kept challenging me to explain how it was internally inconsistent. Luckily, I didn't say to him that dialectical reason belongs only in the classroom, or complain about his tone. I tried to explain why it was internally inconsistent, several times over the course of a few weeks, but found that I really couldn't. Then in frustration I decided to investigate for myself, and proved that Bortkiewicz's alleged proof was wrong. (Well, at the time I wasn't all that sure the disproof would hold up in the end, but as the years pass, the doubts progressively vanish.) It was at that moment, Jan. 1986, that I learned -- really learned -- to think for myself. -- So appeals to authority don't sway me any longer. Correct demonstrations do. -- This is why I reject your appeal to authority: lots of people I respect, including Gil, seem to agree with me, and I will defer to them. It's not that I'm dogmatic, or pigheaded, or religious; it is that the authorities can be wrong -- and often are. QUESTION AUTHORITY. -- I do not understand why you will not admit defeat, as you put it. You don't know that Marx is internally inconsistent. You don't know that the FMT holds up in real-world conditions. Why not simply admit that you do not know these things? Why not simply say you don't LIKE Marx's theories, or some of them or some aspects of them, etc? Actually, you personally do come close to saying this. My beef is with the people to whom you defer, who refuse to put it this way, and instead go around talking about internal inconsistency, proof of error, rigor, correction, and all that rot. If they would simply retract their false claims of error and inconsistency, and admit that they just don't LIKE Marx's theories (etc.), I would gladly leave them alone forever.
net products, profit, surplus-labor
This is in reply to Daniel Davies. People should really consult my paper. I answer these kinds of objections in it. Why would anyone carry out production of a good worth half as much as its inputs? They wouldn't, not knowingly. That's not what's at issue here. Consider the following tableaux: Even-numbered hours --- sector input of A input of B output -- -- -- -- A 22 5 B 44 10 - -- total 66 Odd-numbered hours --- sector input of A input of B output -- -- -- -- A 44 10 B 22 5 - -- total 66 There's a 1 unit negative net product of A during even-numbered hours and a 1 unit negative net product of B during odd-numbered hours. But over each 2-hour span, 15 units of A are produced, while only 12 are used up, and the same goes for B. So there's a positive (3 unit) net product of each good over each 2-hour span. If the relative price of A in terms of B happens to exceed 4 in even-numbered hours, and is less than 1/4 in odd-numbered hours, then profit -- when measured in terms of simultaneous valuation (when the input price is constrained to equal the output price) -- is negative in each hour, and therefore over every 2-hour span, and therefore always. But if wages are low, there is surplus-labor. So surplus-labor is not sufficient for positive profit under simultaneous valuation. unless the less stylised version of this argument has some compelling reason why production of B would take place under these relative prices, I'm not sure that this conclusion can be established This isn't relevant. What's at issue isn't what *will* happen, but what is necessary and sufficient. The above shows that surplus-labor is not *sufficient* for profit under simultaneous valuation -- one also must have the right kind of prices in order to have profit, or else no negative net product of anything, even for 1 hour. Right? Andrew Kliman attachment: winmail.dat
RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the real world. The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some, deficits of others. There cannot be any the physical surplus. The fake attempts to show that surplus-labor is necessary and sufficient for profit *under simultaneous valuation* all fail because of precisely this phenomenon. To be precise, I actually have proved only that all of the simultaneist interpretations of Marx -- specifically, simultaneist definitions of profit and surplus-labor -- imply that surplus-labor is neither necessary nor sufficient for profit. I have not claimed to prove that the assumption of simultaneous valuation *logically* precludes one from asserting that surplus labor is a necessary and sufficient condition for positive profit. The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Andrew Kliman Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a role in the creation of profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a role in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value. Gil
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor theory of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it shouldn't even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. This is not something serious scholars do, it is something propagandists, hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do. This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I don't deal in counterfactuals. Instead of diverting the issue, why not deal with it? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Drewk wrote: The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Doug
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I agree that Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to suppress the truth. So how do we decide in a particular case whether it *is* a suppression of the truth? (I leave aside the issue of motives.) It is one thing to claim to prove error or internal inconsistency when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified proofs in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. None of this has anything to do with disagreement. Am I right or not? If not, why not? It is one thing to claim to that one can jettison Marx's own value theory, and still hold that surplus-labor is the sole source of profit, when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs of this proposition have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified proofs in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. Again, none of this has anything to do with disagreement. Am I right or not? If not, why not? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Schwartz Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman That's right, Andrew. We all know you have correctly understood Marx, and we grasp clearly what your perspective, I mean his perspective is, and we know that it id true. But because we are in league with Satan, wesupress it. I mean, for heaven's sake, be serious. Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to suppress the truth. I am sure that Roemer and Gil and Roberto (and me) do our best to understand Marx, among other things, but sometimes that is not good enough. With Roemer, clearly it isn't. Gil's another story. And moreover we may just honestly disgree both with your reading as toits accuracy as a reading of Marx, and as to its adequacy to the world. We can do these things without suppressing anything. Roemer et al would be delighted to have Marx's view applied, also explained. Of course we still might disagree. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: Re: marx's proof re garding surplusvalue and profit
I appreciate Manuel Resende's post. Someone is dealing with the issue instead of diverting. Good! Manuel highlights a key issue that I had not: a bundle of commodities so *ingeniously arranged* that it always corresponds to the weighing of each component in the product (my emphasis). Exactly. This standard commodity is a facile trick, having nothing to do with real-world conditions, so the theorems that apply to it have no bearing whatever on what takes place in the real world. They don't apply. Likewise with the attempts to prove that one doesn't need Marx's value theory in order to hold that exploitation is the sole source of profit -- they're all based on ingeniously arranging an imaginary economy so that there's never a physical deficit or negative physical net product of anything. This has nothing to do with real-world conditions, so the theorems don't apply to the real world. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Resende Manuel Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23907] Re:Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof re garding surplusvalue and profit Drewk wrote: The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Doug wrote: Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Dear Doug: By your reaction, you are proving Drewk right. And that is not funny. Manuel PS: In fact the important point in Drewk's message was that you can't define *a* physical surplus. How do you measure it? In tons? In litres? In a bundle of commodities so ingeniously arranged that it always corresponds to the weighing of each component in the product? No, definitely you can't add pears and apples. Drewk was not calling for revolution, was he?
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
The issue, Michael, has nothing to do with differing about what Marx said. It has to do with false PROOFS that what he said are logically incoherent, in error, etc. Those false proofs have been disproved. When the disproofs are not acknowledged, when the historical record is not corrected, when the allegations of error and internal inconsistency continue even after the alleged proofs have been disproved, then is that not suppression? If not, how would you explain it? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23908] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that does not mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example, Justin knows that I strongly disagree with his reading of Marx, but I do not dream that he is trying to suppress Marx. Your accusation could never be proven, but only asserted. And the repetitive assertion of suppression serves no positive purpose. On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:36:51AM -0500, Drewk wrote: Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor theory of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it shouldn't even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. This is not something serious scholars do, it is something propagandists, hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do. This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the same thing in this context. I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass of surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods. This is the ESSENCE of anti-physicalism. A rough sense is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23911] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the real world. ok Andrew you deny the existence of A physical surplus. The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some, deficits of others. There cannot be any the physical surplus. now you deny the existence of THE physical surplus. Granted there is not a single dimension in which this physical surplus can be expressed. Granted that with technical progress--say computers--it would be difficult for example to determine how many more computer means of production in which the surplus value is embodied. But I think it's a mistake to deny that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that the mass of surplus value even if it falls falls relative to the advanced capital is in fact being expressed in a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods, even if we have no precise measure for that physical quantity. If you deny this, you miss a crucial source of the elasticity and explosiveness of accumulation. My criticism of the TSS school again is that it is anti physicalist. And again here is Marx on the matter: Here is an example of Marx's ability to understand the surplus in both its aspects: ...the development of labour productivity contributes to an increase in the existing capital value, since it increases the mass and diversity of use values in which the same exchange value is represented, and which form the material substratum, the objective elements of this capital, the substantial objects of which constant capital consists directly and variable capital at least indirectly. The same capital and the same labour produce more things that can be transformed into capital, quite apart from the exchange value. These things can serve to absorb additional labour, and thus additional surplus labour also, and can in this way form additional capital. The mass of labour that capital can command does not depend on the its value but rather on the mass of raw and ancillary materials, of machinery and elements of fixed capital, and of means of subsistence, out of which it is composed, whatever their value may be. SINCE THE MASS OF LABOUR APPLIED THUS GROWS, AND THE MASS OF SURPLUS LABOUR WITH IT, THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL REPRODUCED AND THE SURPLUS VALUE NEWLY ADDED TO IT GROWS AS WELL. Capital 3, p. 356-7. vintage Rakesh
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Doug Henwood wrote: the 'real Marx' is being suppressed by Marxists and other radicals? That's ridiculous. This is a distortion of my claim. Deal with my actual claim, which concerns the failure to acknowledge that the false proofs of internal inconsistency and error have been disproved, the repetition of the claims of internal inconsistency and error despite the disproofs, and my characterization of this as suppression. If my claim is ridiculous, it should be easy for you to disprove. Go ahead, do so. Put your money where your mouth is. When Antonio Callari told the IWGVT that they used value theory as a substitute for politics, there wasn't a peep of reaction from the crowd. Nor was there when Bertell Ollman told them (at the same session) they didn't understand how alienated their categories were. Sad, very sad. This mischaracterizes what was said. Neither spoke a negative word about the IWGVT. I largely agreed with Ollman's comments, which dealt with the way economists in general construe Marx. You may despise my politics, but you can't say that I use value theory as a substitute for it. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Drewk wrote: The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Doug
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. I'll be happy to send you, or anyone else, an electronic copy upon request. You need to be able to read math written in MSWord's equation editor 3. what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? This is a very complex issue that I have no time to address now. Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? Yes, but I've written less about the accumulation process than you may think. Refutations of the Okishio theorem and the displaying of possible profit rate paths different from the path of the material rate of profit don't count as analyses of the actual accumulation process, in my book. Andrew Kliman P.S. For some reason, a lot of my mail is vanishing before it hits my Inbox, so there might be posts that I haven't replied to because I haven't seen them. I've retrieved a couple from the archives already. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23918] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Andrew writes: A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the same thing in this context. ok I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass of surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods. This is the ESSENCE of anti-physicalism. ok but then what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? I think you have bent the stick too far in the value direction. A rough sense is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. ok. Again I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. My knowledge of the Fundamental Marxian Theory derives from Catephores' book. RB
RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I appreciated Mat Forstater's post. I agree with most of what he says Drewk, you seem to think that proof is something everyone agrees on. No, I actually don't, since, as you say: My experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually based on methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, and the like, so that usually, though not always, people more or less make sense within their own framework. This is EXACTLY the point. EXACTLY. The people who claim(ed) to prove that Marx committed these errors and such actually just have methodological, philosophical, and other disagreements with him. They have not proven what they claim to prove -- *internal inconsistency*, i.e., that Marx does not make sense within [his] own framework. Please keep in mind that all of the proofs by proponents of the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory are actually disproofs. E.g., Marx's critics say they have proven that, even without his value theory, surplus-labor can be shown to be necessary and sufficient for profit. I've disproved this. I mention this because there's a fundamental asymmetry between proofs and disproofs. One should indeed be very skeptical about claims to prove something. What's usually at issue are instead disagreements ... based on methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, and the like. It is much more plausible that someone who claims to disprove something is right. If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense. Also, when one proves that something is necessary or impossible, the proof is valid only if it holds in all possible cases, while the presentation of even a single counterinstance is enough to disprove the claim. People understand this, but they often fail to understand an important implication: one is not permitted to make methodological choices when one constructs a proof, if doing so restricts the set of cases under consideration. For instance, Marx's critics are entitled to favor models in which all physical surpluses (or net products) of everything are always positive. Their methodological reasons for this might be good or they might be bad, but that's irrelevant. They simply cannot use these models to prove that even without Marx's value theory, surplus-labor can be shown to be necessary and sufficient for profit. They prove no such thing. They prove merely that surplus-labor and profit happen to coexist under a very restrictive set of circumstances. I don't know whether others have totally ignored your disproofs or not. I wouldn't say totally. But I would say there's only one individual (besides us) who has more or less forthrightly acknowledged that any of our disproofs is correct. In _Research in Political Economy_, Vol. 18 (2000), Duncan Foley wrote: I understand Freeman and Kliman to be arguing that Okishios theorem as literally stated is wrong because it is possible for the money and labor rates of profit to fall under the circumstances specified in its hypotheses. I accept their examples as establishing this possibility. But people still keep going around asserting that the Okishio theorem is true, and that it disproves Marx's original version of his law of the tendential fall in the profit rate. And certainly no one else has chosen to back Foley up. Anyway, if these threads are intended to get people out to your sessions at the Easterns, like the one with Gary Mongiovi presenting the Sraffian critique of your work, and you and Alan Freeman responding, then it's worked for me. Actually, that wasn't my intent -- I intervened in an existing thread simply in order to correct an incorrect statement Gil Skillman made -- but I'll look forward to seeing you (again) there. Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Mat Forstater wrote: I don't see the problem with the notion of a physical surplus. The surplus product is production over and above production of the (socially and historically determined) means of subsistence. Yes, according to one interpretation of Marx, but not others. But let's stick with this. Imagine a two-good economy. During the period, 10 units of each good is produced, workers consume 5 units of each good, and 8 units of good A (and 0 of B) are used up. Then the physical surplus of A is 10 - 8 - 5 = -3, and the physical surplus of B is 10 - 5 - 0 = 5. So there is no the physical surplus. There's a physical deficit of A, a physical surplus of B. Total labor time (TLT) - necessary labor time (NLT) = surplus labor time (SLT). If TLT NLT, SLT is positive, and there must be a physical form of the goods produced during SLT, no? Yes and no. There will in general be surpluses of some goods and deficits of others. E.g., more cars produced than used up and consumed by workers, but less steel produced than used up. There will be negative net products of some goods produced during the SLT. Car workers produce a physical surplus of cars during their SLT, but a negative physical surplus of steel. Steelworkers produce a positive physical surplus of steel but a negative physical surplus of coal. Etc. So you have to look at the whole economy. But when you add it up, there's no reason why the aggregate physical surplus of anything has to be positive, especially during a short time-span -- minute, hour, day, week. If you want more specificity, consider another two-good economy. Sector A produces 10 units of A, using 9 units of A and 1 unit of labor. Sector B produces 3 units of B, using up 2 units of A and 1 unit of labor. So there's a positive net product of B, 3 units, and a negative net product of A, 10 - 9 - 2 = -1 unit. Now under the interpretation in question, the per-unit value of A is 1 and the per-unit value of B is also 1, so the total value of the net product is 2. Imagine that workers' wages are *very* low, so that surplus-labor, the total value of the net product minus the value of wages, is very close to 2. If, however, the relative price of A in terms of B is greater than 3, then profit -- measured simultaneously -- will be negative. So we have surplus-labor but negative profit. This was just a simple example for intuitive purposes. It is much more restrictive than the proof in my paper, which again, I'll be happy to send folks. Drewk
RE: RE: RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Mat: I have perused a couple of your papers on the web The published stuff is usually better in order to gain a basic understanding of the issues from the ground up. For economists who understand the technicalities of some of the other interpretations, the piece I'd recommend one reads first is A Temporal Single-system Interpretation of Marx's Value Theory, published in ROPE 11:1, in 1999. Mat: Pardon my slowness, I don't think you're slow at all. Mat: but can you give me a baby explanation of the negative product issues again. When you say that 10 of A are produced and workers consume 5 and 8 are used up so that the net product is -3, I'm assuming the deficit was possible because there was an already existing stock of A, right? There's an already existing stock in any case. If workers eat their 5 units before the 10 are produced, then the period must have started with a stock of at least 13 units, 5 + 8. Assume that it was 13 units. Then since only 10 units are produced, the end-of-period stock is 3 units less than the start of period stock. That's the negative physical surplus of A, - 3 units. Alternatively it is gross output minus consumed input minus physical wages. The economy cannot *reproduce* itself next period, using the *same* technology, on the same scale, without a *reserve* stock of at least 3 units of A. In other words, to have reproduction on the same or larger scale without technical change, the initial stock of A would have to be at least 16 units, not 13. To anticipate what might be coming down the line, the following kind of thing is quite possible. During even-numbered minutes, 10 units of A are produced, while 12 units are used up, and 15 units of B are produced, while 8 units are used up. During odd-numbered minutes, it is the opposite: 15 units of A are produced, while 8 units are used up, and 10 units of B are produced, while 12 units are used up. So EVERY minute -- always -- there's a NEGATIVE net product of one good. This is so even though over each two-minute span, 25 units of each good is produced while only 20 units is used up, and thus the economy can grow over time without drawing down stocks to zero. But it would seem that either you don't include those three used up this period that were produced in the previous period OR you include all of the stock of A that pre-existed in your net calculation--either confine the calculation to that produced in this period or include all periods. I'm not sure I understand this. You can compute the net product (actually, physical surplus, since physical wages are also deducted) in the top example either as end-of-period stock minus start-of-period stock, or, equivalently, as gross output minus used up input minus physical wages. The basic relations are end-of-period stock = start-of-period stock - consumed input - physical wages + gross output net product = gross product - consumed input physical surplus = net product - physical wages I hope this helps. If not, catch me in Boston and I'll try again. Drewk
RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I'm not sure what the below is in response to, but briefly: Marx generally thought that market prices tend to fluctuate around equal-profit rate prices -- classical equilibrium prices. (I would dispute your reading of the end of Vol. II and Ch. 9 of Vol. III if I had time.) Such prices have theoretical interest to me. They do not exert any force -- they are the outcome of the workings of various forces. Real magnitudes determine derivative magnitudes like averages, not v.v. All of this has zip to do with the equilibrium -- stationary -- prices and the associated equilibrium profit rate of simultaneism that we critique. Do not confuse the two. The latter is of no interest whatsoever. I have no position on the rest. I'd need to study the question carefully. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23942] Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I shall repost the following questions (of course if John E or Manuel or Gary or Mat has answers, I would appreciate it): And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption of classical natural or equilibrium prices in his own reproduction schemes and transformation analyses? Do equilibrium prices not exert *any* force at *any* point in the course of capital accumulation or the business cycle? Are they of *no* theoretical interest *whatsoever*? Isn't it towards an equilibrium point based on the new adopted technology that the economy is moving in Schumpeter's recession phase of the cycle? Or do Andrew and Alan Freeman reject this Schumpeterian assumption just as it is rejected by Alan's father Chris Freeman, perhaps the leading economic student of science and technology in second half of the 20th century? Rakesh ps Andrew I'll copy your paper at the library since I won't be able to read it.
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx. Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx.. Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
All of the interpretations of Marx's value theory in which inputs and outputs are valued (priced) simultaneously imply that surplus-labor is *neither* necessary nor sufficient for positive profit. This is proved for even for economies without joint production, that are able to reproduce themselves over time, in Andrew J. Kliman, Simultaneous Valuation vs the Exploitation Theory of Profit, _Capital and Class_ 73, Spring 2001. So there are lots of people who do dispute that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for ... the existence of profit, by virtue of adhering to the interpretations they hold. Andrew Kliman P.S. I hope to say more about this and related matters in a week or two, but I thought it necessary (and sufficient) to make this factual correction here. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gil Skillman Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23879] Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Michael writes: One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value. Marx did offer one simple proof of the role of surplus value in the creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed, profits would be impossible. Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a role in the creation of profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a role in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value. Gil
Suppression of Marx
I hope soon to respond more fully to Mat Forstater, Jim Devine, and Justin Schwartz. Now there's no time. So for now, let me just try to refocus attention on the central reason why I say there's suppression of Marx by the Marxist and Sraffian economists. Everyone else in the discussion seems to be avoiding it, or maybe some people still haven't gotten it. So here goes. In his latest attack on me, Justin Schwartz leaves out and does not respond to the following (I wrote it in response to him yesterday): I have nothing against alleging internal inconsistency WHEN it is true; WHEN one can prove it. But when one alleges it without proof, that is an ideological attack and effort to suppress. Certainly when the proofs of internal inconsistency have themselves been disproved -- as they have in the case of Marx -- and yet one continues to make them, or refrains from setting the record straight, it is quite clear that what is involved is an ideological attack on and effort to suppress the guy. The matter is straightforward. And no, Justin, it has *nothing* to do with whether one agrees or disagrees with the criticisms of Marx his critics make. School X alleges that some tenet of School Y is internally inconsistent, or invalid due to logical error. X alleges that the internal inconsistency, or logical error, has been proved. Thus far we have no reason to believe that these allegations constitute an ideological attack or effort to suppress. However, School Y now *disproves* the alleged proof of internal inconsistency or logical error. This doesn't mean that Y criticizes X's views. It means that Y demonstrates that X has not proved what it said it proved. At this point one might begin to suspect that X's allegations constitute an ideological attack and effort to suppress. But hey, X could have made an innocent error. Or there may be an error in Y's disproof. So at this point, I for one wouldn't suspect an ideological attack or effort to suppress. But now ... Y's disproof stands the test of time. School X does a lot of criticizing of Y's views, a lot of name-calling, etc., but it fails to overturn the disproof. And yet, School X does not concede that its claim to have proven internal inconsistency or logical error is false. It throws up all sort of smokescreens, like criticizing the views of School Y, name-calling, etc., in order to divert attention away from whether or not it claims to have PROVEN internal inconsistency or logical error are true or false. Some members of X continue to allege internal inconsistency or logical error -- now of course without any proof. Some still go around repeating the claims that internal inconsistency or logical error have been proved. Others are more tricky and cautious, but they too refrain from correcting the historical record, by retracting their false claims to have proven logical error or internal inconsistency. At *this* point, it is completely clear that X is engaged in an ideological attack on and suppression of Y. Right? Hic Rhodus! Hic Salta! J'accuse. Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: Some questions
Roemer's Analytical foundations of Marxian economic theory should be understood as part of an ideological attack on, and effort to suppress, Marx's ideas in their original form. For some reason, Roemer is regarded as a paragon of rigor, but he actually resorts to a blatant bait-and-switch in order to try to put over many of the work's major results, including the claim that one can show that exploitation is the source of profit without the concept of value. His notion of reproducibility is a lynchpin of the book. Well, on p. 19 or so, Roemer first says (rightly) that a certain condition is *sufficient* for reproduction to occur, but in the next breath, he declares it (falsely) to be a *necessary* condition. It is just a very restrictive, special-case condition that he smuggles in because he can't produce his results in any other way. In other words, what he's saying is completely false. Roberto Veneziani of the London School of Economics, in his Exploitation and Time, has demolished Roemer's claims regarding the role of differential ownership of productive assets. Veneziani shows that Roemer's argument falls apart once one moves into a multiperiod context. Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: RE: Re: Some questions
A reply to Justin Schwartz's PEN-L:23401. Justin, you've completely misrepresented me. I don't think Marx's ideas are sacrosanct, holy writ, etc. I did not criticize Roemer for disagreeing with Marx. I would never consider disagreement to be an ideological attack or effort to suppress. There's nothing in what I wrote that suggests that. Let Roemer disagree. I WISH HE HAD. The reason his work is part of an ideological attack on, and effort to suppress, Marx's ideas in their original form is that Roemer, like the rest of the Marxian and Sraffian critics of Marx, DOES NOT pose his disagreements as disagreements. He *doesn't* say: here's what Marx thought, here's why I don't like it, or here's the evidence against it, and here's my own view. We have our view; Marx has his. That would be the honest, principled thing to do. Roemer Co. instead say that Marx's own theories are illegitimate, unworthy even of being seriously considered, not even possibly correct. They cook up false internal inconsistencies that they and other then use to legitimate the suppression of Marx's ideas from classrooms, bookshelves, and journals, including journals of radical economics. I have recently discussed on this list the other reason they falsely allege internal inconsistency: Marx's Marxian and Sraffian critics want to be able to propound theories that differ radically from his (which, by itself, would be fine) WHILE AT THE SAME TIME posing as ... inheritors of his project. They want to have their cake and eat it too. This strategy could not succeed if Marx's OWN theories, in their original form, were allowed to exist as a viable alternative to his critics' theories. There is only one way that the critics can portray themselves as inheritors. They *must* make it seem that Marx's own theories, in their original form, are illegitimate. Not just wrong -- they don't want to come out and say that they *disagree* with his views -- but untenable on logical grounds, and therefore in need of correction by the valiant Marxian and Sraffian inheritors of Marx. Is it their fault if the corrected versions of his theories contradict his at almost every turn, and with respect to some really important issues (which the transformation problem per se is definitely not)? I have nothing against alleging internal inconsistency WHEN it is true; WHEN one can prove it. But when one alleges it without proof, that is an ideological attack and effort to suppress. Certainly when the proofs of internal inconsistency have themselves been disproved -- as they have in the case of Marx -- and yet one continues to make them, or refrains from setting the record straight, it is quite clear that what is involved is an ideological attack on and effort to suppress the guy. Right? Andrew Kliman
RE: Roemer and Veneziani
Unfortunately, I don't have time to return to Veneziani now. I've already addressed most of Gil's points regarding ideological attack and suppression in my reply to Justin Schwartz. As for Roemer on reproducibility. On p. 19, middle, he specif[ies a] condition [ ] to assure reproducibility -- i.e., a sufficient condition. Then he calls it our requirement for *reproducibility*, i.e., a necessary condition. Bait and switch. You can say it is just verbal sloppiness, but it isn't. He uses this fake definition of reproducibility to deduce fake results. The point is that it is entirely illegitimate to use sufficient conditions that way. The reason that this particular sleight of hand is part of an ideological attack on and effort to suppress Marx is that Roemer uses his fake definition of reproducibility to derive his fake fundamental theorem. He supposedly shows that even without Marx's value theory, one can show that exploitation is necessary and sufficient for profit to exist. So the idea is that we can keep the parts of Marx we like and get rid of those we don't, which would be okay to say if it were true. But it isn't. So in order to get people to repudiate Marx's value theory, Roemer is making people believe that they can still hold on to his theory of the origin of profit. But it is not true. One can't. Without Roemer's sufficient condition masquerading as a necessary condition, one can't show that exploitation is necessary and sufficient for profit to exist without Marx's value theory. But in reality, we do not reproduce ourselves the way Roemer's fak-o condition states -- it is not at all necessary -- and when you model reproduction in a less restrictive way, out goes his fundamental theorem. Andrew Kliman
RE: Re: Some questions
Mat Forstater wrote: Since when do Marxists and Sraffians suppress Marx or the study of Marx? What is _Marx After Sraffa_? What is the transformation problem? What is the Okishio theorem? What's all the stuff about correcting or completing Marx? In the courses you took in which internal inconsistencies or logical errors on Marx's part were alleged, was equal time, or even any real consideration, given to the literature which disproves the proofs of these allegations, or otherwise presents the other side? Was there any balance on the faculty? How about even debates with invited speakers? Is there any balance on the editorial boards of these people's journals? Do they try to make their conferences representative? I am not impressed by the fact that Marx appears on someone's reading list. That's a fig leaf, and he's dead so he can't challenge them. Only living pro-Marx authors can. Is that challenge given a real hearing? I will have a lot more to say about this, but I'd like to hear your response first. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Forstater, Mathew Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23411] RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: Some questions Since when do Marxists and Sraffians suppress Marx or the study of Marx? All of my Marxist and Sraffian teachers (e.g., Shaikh, Gordon, Garegnani, Eatwell) promoted the careful study of Marx. They always provided logical and textual evidence for their interpretations and disagreements, though one might not be convinced by their arguments. I'll admit they were dogmatic (in differing degrees), but they did not suppress study of or discussion about Marx in the classroom or in research. Drewk writes: The reason his work is part of an ideological attack on, and effort to suppress, Marx's ideas in their original form is that Roemer, like the rest of the Marxian and Sraffian critics of Marx, DOES NOT pose his disagreements as disagreements. He *doesn't* say: here's what Marx thought, here's why I don't like it, or here's the evidence against it, and here's my own view. We have our view; Marx has his. That would be the honest, principled thing to do. Roemer Co. instead say that Marx's own theories are illegitimate, unworthy even of being seriously considered, not even possibly correct. They cook up false internal inconsistencies that they and other then use to legitimate the suppression of Marx's ideas from classrooms, bookshelves, and journals, including journals of radical economics.
RE: Suppression of Marx
Hi Charles, I'm not sure which article of Michael Perelman's you are referring to. But he's on this list, of course, so perhaps the best way to clarify matters is for Michael to indicate whether there's anything in my account he disagrees with. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23215] Suppression of Marx Suppression of Marx by Drewk 24 February 2002 20:51 UTC This is a reply to Charles Brown's pen-l 22901. (I hope to respond to Tom Walker's question in pen-l 22893 soon.) Andrew, Thanks for taking the time to give that summary of your thinking. I want to note that I got the take on the transformation issue that I posed from reading Michael Perelman's article on devaloration. Charles
Fwd: IWGVT mini-conference at the EEA Boston Park Plaza, March 13-17. Apologies for cross-posting
SESSION 1: DEFINING AND MEASURING VALUE Friday 9am Chair: Alan Freeman Estimating Gross Domestic Product Using a Surplus Value Approach Victor Kasper, Buffalo State College, USA Modelling profit-rate distributions using L-moments Julian Wells, The Open University, UK On the Identity of Value and Labour: A Defence of Intrinsic Value Phil Dunn, Independent, Britain SESSION 2: VALUE IN THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT Friday 11am Chair: Phil Dunn On Price and Value William Krehm, Independent Economist, Canada Stigler and Barkai on Ricardo's Profit Rate Theory: Some methodological considerations 35 years later Andrew Kliman, Pace University, USA The Labour Theory of Value: Economics or Ethics? Peter Dooley, University of Saskatchewan, Canada SESSION 3: DOES THE SRAFFIAN CRITIQUE OF MARX SUCCEED? Friday 2pm Chair: Julian Wells Vulgar Economy in Marxian Garb: A Critique of Temporal Single System Marxism Gary Mongiovi, St John's University, USA Discussants: Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman SESSION 4: GOVERNMENT, POLICY AND CRITICAL ECONOMICS Friday 4pm Chair: Andrew Kliman Current Factors Which Make Science a Productive Force at the Service of Capital the Fourth Stage in the Running London: Practical Economics in a Growing World City Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich, UK Production Organization Dimitri Uzinidis, Universite du Littoral, Dunkerque, France Self-administration: solution via value to the urban transportations problems Vladimir Micheletti, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Brasil, Brasil --- Dear friend Please find attached the list of sessions and abstracts for the IWGVT mini-conference at the EEA in Boston, March 15th-17th 2002. Papers will be posted on the website if time permits but may initially be available only at the conference itself do to extreme pressure of work. They may also be e-mailed on request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . I feel I owe you all a particular apology for the extreme lateness, on this occasion, of notification about the mini-conference, in contrast with our past practice. A number of other highly significant IWGVT events took priority including the two successful Greenwich University symposia; last years colloquium at La Sapienza University in Rome, and the book which arose from it; and (finally!) the forthcoming publication of an edited collection of past papers from the mini-conferences. Other demands on the conference organizer made it impossible to achieve the required standards in organizing this conference; during the last year I have been in transition from my academic job to my present position as economist at the GLA and for most of last year I was doing both jobs. This transition is now complete; the growing level of academic and political interest and support for the views that the IWGVT was created to propound is testimony to its vitality. I look forward to seeing those of you that are coming to the Boston conference and can take this opportunity to give you an early reminder that next years EEA, and IWGVT mini-conference, will be in New York. Best wishes Alan Freeman
Suppression of Marx
This is a reply to Charles Brown's pen-l 22901. (I hope to respond to Tom Walker's question in pen-l 22893 soon.) Charles asked me Is it your position that the 'transformation problem' is a bit of a misnomer, because Marx's point was that prices deviating unsystematically from value is what capitalism must do because of exploitation ? So, that from the Marxist standpoint the failure to find a mathematical functional relationship between value and price is a confirmation of Marx, not a 'problem' for Marx's theory ? The law of value is like a 'state' law. It is the violation of it by prices that results in crisis as a 'punishment' for being out of line with value proportions, the law. I agree with a lot of what you say, Charles. But, no, this isn't really my position. My position is that (a) the transformation problem is a NON-EXISTENT problem, because (b) the allegation of internal inconsistency in Marx's account of the transformation (of commodity values into prices of production) has never been proven, and (c) indeed the alleged proof of internal inconsistency has been disproved. I'll substantiate this below. But first, let me continue with your question. Certainly, *one* point of Marx's was that prices deviating unsystematically from value is what capitalism must do -- because of exploitation, and because of other things. One of these other things is that, owing to competition, businesses that exploit a lot of workers do not tend to rake in a higher profit per dollar invested than businesses that exploit few workers. Marx's account of the transformation in Ch. 9 of Vol. III of _Capital_ deals specifically and only with this latter issue. Thus, I fully agree with your statement that, according to Marx's theory, the violation of [the law of value] by prices ... results in crisis as a 'punishment' for being out of line with value proportions I also think this is a very important issue. However, this issue is not dealt with in Marx's account of the transformation in Ch. 9. Ch. 9 doesn't deal with the relationship of prices to values *in general*, but only with the relationship of *prices of production* to values. (Prices of production are hypothetical prices that would result in equal profit rates.) You suggest that there's been a failure to find a mathematical functional relationship between value and price. I agree that a function relating values to prices *in general* is an impossibility -- prices can differ from values in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons. But, again, Ch. 9 deals only with the relationship of values to prices of production, and it isn't the case that no functional relationship between values and prices of production has been found. In Ch. 9, Marx himself presented a precise functional relationship between them. He didn't regard deviations of prices of production from values as any confirmation of the law of value. Indeed he recognized that the deviations *appear* to violate the law. What he regarded as a confirming the law of value was precisely the functional relationship between prices of production and values that he presented in Ch. 9. Their functional relationship is such that, *notwithstanding* the fact that prices of production deviate from values in any particular industry, there is no deviation at the economy-wide level. Total price equals total value; total profit equals total surplus-value; and the level of the general (economy-wide) rate of profit is not affected by the fact that commodities exchange at prices which differ from values. Thus, it remains the case that, as he had said earlier in _Capital_, the level of the general rate of profit is determined in production, before exchange and independently of exchange. It depends only on the amount of surplus-value that capital has succeeded in pumping out of the workers, as well as the amount of capital-value invested in production. These equalities between price and value magnitudes, not any deviations between prices of production and values, are what Marx regarded as confirming the law of value -- in the context of Ch. 9. (I agree that, in a different context, the punishment of backward producers for producing at higher-than-average value is another confirmation of the law of value.) Now the problem, of course, is that Marx's precise mathematical relationship between prices of production and values was declared invalid, owing to an alleged internal inconsistency. His account of the transformation was thus deemed in need of correction, and the corrected procedures all imply, in one way or another, that the law of value does NOT hold true in reality; Marx's equalities cannot all be true, if one accepts the corrections. Now keep in mind that the *only* rationale for correcting Marx -- the only rationale for claiming that there's a transformation problem -- is the allegation that his own account of the transformation is *internally inconsistent*. To substantiate this
RE: Re: Suppression of Marx
Dear Melvin P., Could you go slower, please, and fill in the gaps for me? I don't understand your references. Could you give examples? I did get the point about Southern cotton production being (capitalist) commodity production, even though Black slaves, not free workers, produced the cotton, and how economists could not (and cannot) understand this because the phenomenon didn't conform to the pure theoretical abstraction. I agree with you. Ciao Drewk
Denial
In pen-l 22914, Eric Nilsson charged that Andrew Kliman sent me an e-mail message threatening me with legal action unless I stop sending messages such as those I have been sending to pen-l. I did not. I sent him an e-mail message yesterday, but it contained NO threat of legal action. This is not an isolated incident. A few days ago, I was falsely accused on the OPE-L list of having threatened another RRPE editorial board member with legal action. After I denied the accusation, and asked for a retraction, it was suggested that no retraction was necessary, because a threat of legal action had perhaps (!) been implicit. I therefore feel compelled to add the following with respect to Nilsson's allegation: My e-mail message to him contained no threat, explicit OR implicit. It could not *reasonably* have been construed as having threatened legal action. Were Nilsson in a different frame of mind, I believe he himself would not have construed it as a threat -- which, again, it was not. I must say that I find this level of discussion extremely distasteful. I have been compelled in this particular instance to descend into the gutter, but I do so purely defensively, solely in order to clear myself of a false accusation leveled against me. I pleaded yesterday (pen-l 22889) for principled debate, a debate that discusses issues, not individuals, a debate that focus[es] strictly upon the practices and policies of institutions, eschewing gossip and ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, my plea went all but unheeded -- and I am not referring only or even mostly to Nilsson here. I can only reiterate my plea, and pledge to abide by it. Andrew Kliman
Denial: policemen vs. neighbors
Hi Eric, how's your family doing? Regarding your pen-l 22942: A policeman is (a) armed, and (b) the personification of state power. To be threatening me, a policeman need not say anything, or even pull me over. His mere presence on the road is a threat. Since I am neither armed nor the personification of state power, your analogy is not apposite. Here's one that is: Eric's dog keeps going into the neighbors' yard and chewing up their flowers. They say, Look, this is our property. You're not allowed to let your dog run loose and destroy our flowers. We urge you to put a stop to this. Eric would have us believe that this is a threat -- and indeed a threat of *legal action*, since the words property and allowed were used. He would have us believe that any reasonable person would take it as a threat, indeed a threat of legal action, and that it was necessarily intended as one. As Eric sees it, he and his neighbors are enemies, so their plea to him isn't friendly chat. But if it isn't friendly chat, the only other possibility is that the neighbors threatened legal action. Ergo they threatened legal action. If the neighbors deny that they were issuing a threat, much less a threat of legal action, he calls them liars. Again. I reiterate my denial (pen-l 22939). Andrew Kliman
Interesting exchange on PKT
The following exchange took place on Wednesday on the PKT list. I've omitted one sentence about a matter I'd rather not discuss, as well as the previous messages that the authors appended to their own. Andrew Kliman +++ Subject: RE: Dear Supporters Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:02:34 -0500 From: Clifford Poirot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew, My opinion is that you have done all heterodox economists a favor. There is little point to heterodoxy if it simply becomes a set of competing rigid orthodoxies without real power in the profession, but with power to enforce conformity on dissenting heterodoxers. Best wishes. Subject: RE: Dear Supporters Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:33:59 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mongiovi Gary) Organization: SJU To: 'Clifford Poirot' [EMAIL PROTECTED], '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] May I ask Clifford to tell us what direct knowledge he has, other than what he has been told by Andrew Kliman and his friends, of the circumstances discussed in Andrew's post? In particular, I would be interested to know what evidence underlies his belief that URPE tried to enforce conformity on dissenting heterodoxers. These are serious charges and they ought not to be seconded on the basis of hearsay. I loom forwrad to your reply. regards, Gary Subject: RE: Dear Supporters Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:57:05 -0500 From: Clifford Poirot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clifford Poirot [EMAIL PROTECTED], '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have not seconded anything. I said Andrew had done us all a favor. [...] Perhaps there is another side to this story. I do however, personally know Andrew to be truthful. By fighting for a principle Andrew has created a degree of openness.
Dear Supporters
Please Circulate Widely --- A VICTORY FOR PLURALISM! February 12, 2002 Dear Supporters of Pluralism, We were completely outmatched in terms of money and power, but we have won a tremendous victory! This is a time for celebration. It is also a time to capitalize on our victory by intensifying the struggle for pluralism, especially pluralism *within* radical economics. We faced a far richer and more powerful adversary, the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE). But what proved to be more important than money and power is what *we* had the knowledge that our cause is just, and the determination to fight for it to the end, without regard for the consequences. As a result, a charge of professional misconduct that jeopardized my ability to earn a living no longer hangs over my head, and we have broken the publishing ban imposed on me by URPEs journal. (For those not yet aware of the specifics, I have appended below part of a recent message by Alan Freeman. Please note that the URPE statement also appears in the latest URPE Newsletter, Winter 2002, p. 3.) I wish to extend my deepest thanks to all of you who stood by me during that frightening and miserable time when my ability to work and my reputation were threatened. Your advice was of inestimable value. Even more important was your plain human support. It kept my spirits up time and time again, helping me to bear up under the suffering. This victory truly could not have been won without you. Yet it is not only a personal victory. It is a victory for all of us. Editorial boards that would want to act as censorship boards will now have to think twice before banning or otherwise mistreating authors with whom they disagree. Schools of thought that would rather launch ad hominem attacks on opponents than engage in open theoretical debate will have to think twice. Professional associations that would sacrifice all principles and ostracize their internal critics for the sake of institutional survival will have to think twice. The more widely we spread the word about the victory we have *all* won, the more widespread will be the benefits we *all* reap. There is also another sense in which it is important to spread the word. We have won a victory in part because, instead of just complaining privately about violations of the norms of pluralism, we were willing to go public, to expose them openly. It is time to intensify such efforts. I sense in URPEs statement the beginning of a more cooperative attitude, which I eagerly welcome. I pledge my complete and unstinting cooperation to all members of URPE who wish to help us right the wrongs that have been done and repudiate the parties responsible for them. Let us together ensure that URPE no longer functions as a union against other peoples radical economics (AESA, IWGVT, post-Keynesians, etc.). Andrew Kliman From: Alan Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Obstacle to pluralism removed Dear Friend I am now writing on a happier note to inform you that URPE has retracted the false charge it made against [Dr] Andrew [Kliman] and has lifted the publishing ban imposed on him. RRPE and its agents falsely charged that Andrew violated professional ethics by submitting a paper to another journal while it was still under review at the RRPE, and banned all further articles authored by him. In its retraction, which I reproduce below, URPE accepts that the paper was no longer under review when Andrew submitted it elsewhere. Although the fundamental underlying issue of pluralism remains unresolved, since Andrew's paper was never reviewed again and the appeal he requested was never granted, nevertheless the retraction removes a decisive obstacle to genuine scholarly debate around this substantive question. This must now develop on the basis of a recognition of the legitimate contribution and right to be heard of all principal schools of thought, unfettered by any restrictions or charges concerning persons which in any way restrict the access of the reading public to the ideas that they hold. Below is the text of URPE's retraction which is published on its website at (http://www.urpe.org/rrpehome.html) STATEMENT BY URPE STEERING COMMITTEE, HAZEL DAYTON GUNN, MANAGING EDITOR OF RRPE, THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF RRPE: Dr. Andrew Kliman believed that Hazel Dayton Gunn disseminated a claim that he had violated professional ethics by publishing an article in another journal while it was still under review by the RRPE. WE WISH TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHEN HE SUBMITTED A REVISED VERSION OF THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION TO ANOTHER JOURNAL, THE MANUSCRIPT HAD ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY RRPE. However, a misunderstanding arose after Dr. Kliman requested an appeal of the original rejection. The matter has now been settled and THE EDITORIAL BOARD HAS REMOVED THE SANCTION DENYING DR. KLIMAN THE
for principled debate
Instead of still more maligning of individuals and gossip about individuals, what should be taking place now is discussion of the substantive issue, the matter of principle, namely pluralism -- including pluralism within radical economics. Had the RRPE majority been willing three years ago to engage in open debate over its practices and policies, URPE would not be in the mess it is in now, and would not be licking its wounds. Instead of openly debating the substantive issue, the RRPE majority waged a campaign to discredit an individual. Why? The strategy is a clear sign of authoritarianism. The policies and practices of the Institution are Absolutely Correct, and unarguably so. Anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is therefore not just wrong, but mentally unbalanced and guilty of anti-social behavior. Thus the ex-USSR locked its internal dissidents away in mental institutions, and thus URPE responded to internal criticism as it did. Let us be done, once and for all, with such unprincipled -- and ultimately counterproductive -- responses. Let us STICK TO ISSUES, NOT INDIVIDUALS. Let us all make sure that theoretical debate focuses strictly on the assessment of theories rather than on the motives, character, and tone of ones theoretical opponents. In political debate, let us likewise focus strictly upon the practices and policies of institutions, eschewing gossip and ad hominem attacks. If URPEs leadership wishes to defend its policies and practices, it should stop trying to do so by maligning its critics, and instead encourage open debate and *independent* inquiry into the facts. Andrew Kliman
Question for Doug Henwood
In a recent post, Doug Henwood quoted the following: the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication. and added sarcastically, hey, it's important to get those value theory papers out there if we want to overturn bourgeois rule. This seems to suggest that Doug thinks it is okay to ban authors whose theoretical concerns, ideas, or political orientation differ from his own. Have I understood you correctly, Doug? As for value theory's supposed irrelevance, I'd like to remind Doug of the IMF/WB teach-in at which we spoke 2 years ago. There were about 200 anti-global-capitalist youth in the audience, plus a smattering of older folks. I gave a value-theoretic analysis of the IMF, leading to the conclusion that we need to do away with capitalism. At this point the audience broke out into spontaneous applause. At the time, Doug was impressed enough to mention this on both his e-mail list and his radio show. Andrew Kliman
