The Transformation Problem

How will Marxists ever recover? docs.google.com/document/d/1AzH4xeT41ZklJlwI28iWPrpKA0VRbp7h3eCid6qKjWg/edit

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Reclaiming-Marxs-Capital-Inconsistency-Dunayevskaya/dp/0739118528
kapitalism101.wordpress.com/transformation-math-supplement/
amazon.com/Marxs-Theory-Profit-Right-Simultaneist-Temporalist/dp/0739196316.
akliman.squarespace.com/writings/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Piero Sraffa was a marxist

The transformation problem is a lie faggot

Good argument

Marxist economics are incompatible with Sraffian economics. There is an indeterminate that affects SNLT after the business cycle is started - it's impossible for inputs to equal outputs in Marxist economics. I guess physicalist arguments against Marxism make sense in a world where there's no time though.

All this has been debunked by Andrew Kliman, this is old news dude.

"transformation problem"

amazon.com/Reclaiming-Marxs-Capital-Inconsistency-Dunayevskaya/dp/0739118528

kek, read Kalecki faggot

I talked about Kliman and the TSSI in the essay lol

….and you completely failed to comprehend the TSSI. Good job, faggot.

Care to elaborate?

""LTV + SNLT"= value"

Nope. Labor is the source of the self-valorizing of capital, but labor's value is retroactive rather than initially determinative.

Marx fucked up the logic with the LTV's position in the theory of value. It comes in logically only after volume one shit, literally it only can be thought about in volume two and three exchange and competition circuits.

SNLT is the average time spent producing a given commodity in a given field within a market economy. The mud pie argument doesn't hold weight.


No, they say that in a socialist economy commodity production doesn't take place, and the SNLT is only relevant within a market economy. In socialism, things are produced for their use values, not exchange value - their value is irrelevant.


The average value of the book is not simply the time spent to produce the book physically, also the time spent writing the book. The average time a publisher expects a 300 page book to be written measured in hours would contribute to the SNLT for a 300 page book.


I think this goes back to the price of labour not equaling it's value. The time it takes to educate someone for a particular job like a doctor, would contribute to the SNLT.

I don't quite understand the math you are using with Kiliman, but I think this does a good job illustrating why Neo-Marxism superseded Marxism. I did however, send this to Kilman on Facebook and I'll post his response in this thread or in a new one if he does respond. The math you laid out there is a lot more intriguing than your odd straw men used on Volume 1 of Capital.

By the way, that has to be the goddam worst essay writing I've seen in a long time. If you wrote it, holy shit man, learn to fucking make a proper exposition of the issues. This looks more like a notes outline rather than a proper critical piece.

Bump. This was getting interesting and I want to see if op will respond to

I have some more stuff for OP about the TSSI:


Right, and in this model the charges of physicalism still apply. What would be the effects of the LTV on an economy like this? Capitalism would cease to exist, TRP would soon fall to 0 since the prices of inputs were static between all industries.


Yes, no value in the growth of commodities. The value of a commodity does not increase because they need to replace capital, they are simply replacing the worn out capital which was factored into the SNLT from when it was first purchased and subsequently became a part of every commodity it produced. The only thing that would change the value would be:
- exploitation of labour
- introduction of new machinery
Otherwise, in an equilibrium economy the aggregate value does remain the same, the rate of profit would quickly fall to 0 between industries, and the arguments of physicalism still apply.

It would also be helpful if when dealing with the TSSI, you cite WHERE something is asserted. Simply telling me that equation 3 is asserted is fine, but you need to prove that. From what I understand, his equations are derivatives of other physicalist equations(such as Sraffa).

ITT: OP BTFO

To further clarify:
Borkewitz argued that the math gets screwed up when you plug outputs back into inputs. This is because the outputs have added value. The value of a commodity it not W, the wages and C the capital added together. You need to factor in the rate of profit. This ends up looking like W + C + [(C+W) X R], where R is the rate of profit.

The fact that you have a lot of misinformation about Marx and Borkewitz critique makes me question the math you use with the TSSI. You should revise your essay and then repost it.

It's curious that you cite kapitalism but didn't read this kapitalism101.wordpress.com/transformation-math-supplement/

that uses Borewitz production models to prove his critique invalid.

Can somebody explain this to me?

Update Kliman responded to my email:

This is a regurgitation of criticisms made by Roberto Veneziani (and Simon Mohun). Alan Freeman and I responded to all of them. The debate is (re-)published in full here: amazon.com/Marxs-Theory-Profit-Right-Simultaneist-Temporalist/dp/0739196316. It should be appearing in paperback soon.

I think that posting something like this on the kind of board you described smacks of intimidation through math. I’d challenge the poster to explain and defend it in plain English. Also, there are lots of trivial errors in the regurgitation. I doubt that the poster understands what s/he’s posted.


You can read a prepublication version of our response to Veneziani’s first attack here—akliman.squarespace.com/writings/ . Scroll down to “Truthiness.” (The original version was written by me alone; the published version was co-authored with Alan Freeman.) My (our) response to what is stated below (in terms of “a-g”) is on p. 6 and the 1st 3 lines of p. 7.

I don’t want to subscribe to the board, but if you want me to write a response to something that you can upload, please send me the whole of the relevant discussion, including others’ comments.

Best,

Drewk

Fucking normafags Jesus Christ

Still it was cool he answered.

I read das Kapital. What should read I next if I want to understand the LTV better and specifically why it is correct?

Probably these.


Kilman seems like a bro. He even commented on the transformation problem here

he never said he was

while there is certainly overlaps you shouldn't lie