Why are you working on Sraffa's farm?

Why are you still working on the simultaneousist physicalist farm and bowing down to Okishio's theroum when you could be following the only interpretation of Marx that makes him coherent the imortal dialetical science of Marxism-Klimanism/

Other urls found in this thread:

dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/merged.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

NEVAH!

STOP WORKING ON STRAFFAS FARM

Everybody says she's the brains behind paw
She's 72 but she says she's 24

The TSSI is unnecessary since Sraffa's critique of the LTV is based around a misunderstanding of what Marx means by "Value". While I think the analytic Marxists are doing valuable work, I don't exactly see it as being strictly necessary to defending the LTV.

And the TSSI is the correction.

I wrote a terrible parody song about Fred Mosely

I aint gonna work on Mosely's farm no more
No I aint gonna work on Mosely's farm no more
He asks for more examples
just for kicks
Got the hands of Marx, voice of Bortkiewicz
He's single system but he aint temporal
No I aint gonna work on Mosely's farm no more

Kliman's take on what the LTV is isn't the only one, and it's hardly the most obvious one.

Its the only one that makes it logically consistent. Moseleys sacrafices the falling rate of profit and no other can mantain all 3 equalities. That leaves Klimans take.

How doesn't Cockshott and Cottrell's conceptualization of the LTV maintain all 3 equalities?

You mean the empirical one? Kliman has a good critque of it in chapter 11 of this book. (if you factor in firm size the correlation is much less) Even if we assume its correct It may mantain all equalities but again it makes marx logically inconsistent. Essentially Klimans interpretation of Marx has his conclusion come from his Premises while Cockshott's makes his reasoning incoherent even if the conclusion is sound. Plus he sacrifices the falling rate of profit. dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/merged.htm

The reason I didn't mention it is because its not really a interpretation its just handwaving the question of the transformation problem away by saying Marx's theory works empirically.

I'm working my way through it now tbh. I have a problem with it right away tbh. His characterization of the empiricist take on the LTV as "The Labor Theory of Price" is extremely dishonest. Sure, prices are written into the data they use to predict observed prices, but a formulation of a theory isn't necessarily wrong or useless just because it's defined in an impredicative manner. For that to be a valid argument you'd have to either prove that the theory is incoherent (i.e. self-contradictory) or that the theory is tautological.

He calls it the labor theory of price because while Marx said total price = total value Cockshott says there is a near 100% correlation between values and prices.

Plus even if we assume his math is perfect he still rejects the falling rate of profit.

Ok, I decided to finish it since many of my objections were answered later on tbh.

I don't see the problem with taking price as being indicative of value, since that's what has been observed empirically, though. The problem he raises here of "spurious correlation" isn't really a problem, since empiricists have explicitly addressed the problem of aggregation. Intersectoral differences in Value-Price correlation can be explained.
The "Tautological correlation problem" he raises doesn't actually point out any tautology, he just vaguely hand-waves and assumes that all sectors have the same value-creating power.
I have similar issues with almost every point he raises. Like I get that the chapter is called "An Empirical Defense of the Law of Value?" with a question mark at the end, but I really wish he would make concrete statements instead of vaguely insinuating that empiricists are wrong.

He doesn't did just vaguely insinuate that empiricists are wrong. Did you read the bit about factoring in firm size? Doesn't really matter because Cockshott gives up the falling rate of profit.

Yeah, I did. It's suggestive of the TSSI approach is superior to the empiricist approach, but it's not a proof that Cockshott is wrong. Even if you accept all of Kliman's premises here none of this holds if you can explain how productivity relates to firm size (or find another way around this), and also explain differences in intersectoral value production. It's not as definitive as I'd like a critique/refutation to be tbh.
Did you read the paper you liked to me? He very clearly doesn't reject the TRPF, he just linked it to demographics. Admittedly this kinda takes away some of the weight of the TRPF's consequences in the context of a critique of capitalism, but it doesn't entirely remove that weight. Given the unpleasantness that drastic demographic control entails I think it's still pretty weighty. It feels wrong to hold onto a particular formulation of a theory just because it has consequences you like tbh, so I like that Cockshott isn't blindly accepting the orthodox Marxist theory of why the rate of profit has a tendency to fall.

This means he does not reject simultaneous determination of prices. Puting him in the same box as Mosely.

Literally just a sentence after this is:
and they continue to explain why a theory of the TRPF that doesn't rely on those grounds is valuable:
The flaws that they point in Marx are metatheoretical in nature and this paper is more about hedging against possible theoretical inadequacies than litigating the validity of Marx's theories.

By throwing out the concept of profits falling as a result of gains in producitivty instead of over production he essentially rejects the heart of the theory.

Not to interrupt, but does anyone ever address the question on how much Oshiko's theorem is actually capable of coming into effect? At some point you're not going to be able to cut costs any more unless you expect something from nothing.

He doesn't though

Marx's theory says that profit rates will always fall as a result of gains in productivty. Oshiko's therem says they will never. He's saying sometimes.

Can you show me the passage in PCMC or any published article by Sraffa where he himself labeled anything he said a critique of the LTV? Pro-tip: You can't.

He means the Sraffian critique of the LTV ie Marx after Sraffa.

Tarapia tapioco, prematurata la supercazzola o scherziamo?

lol who cares we just need to genocide the bourgeoisie

A destra, per due

its important to keep our logic internally consistent though.