Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:04:02 -0500
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Marxian Economics


Bill Cochrane wrote:

>Doug,
>     I start with the FROP, As is commonly recognized there are three
>periods to which the FROP thesis might be applied,
>1) short run, as in the business cycle.- I dont think many marxists hold
>the view that this due to the FROP and accept that contingent factors
>play a major role in these short run fluctuations.
>2) Medium run periods of, say 20-40 years, such as the so called long
>boom. The analysis of such periods in terms of the FROP would seem to be
>quite appropriate.
>3) Long run epocal trends in which proponents of the FROP assert that
>there is a decline in the average prevailing rate of profit across medium
>term cycles ie that while capitalism alternates between periods of
>relative stability and crisis there is a downward trend  in the rate of
>profit in successive periods of relative stability.
>I find the use of the FROP framework in the case of point two  to provide
>a compelling analytical framework  for analysing the effects of
>technological change however I am undecided on point three largely
>because we simply lack the sort of evidence necessary to ajudicate on
>this point (any one care to produce a sensible consistent series of
>capital stock figures for capitalism since the 16th century?).

Ha! Now that's a life's work, even if it were possible. I agree with you on
periodization. As I think I mentioned on M-I, Anwar Shaikh told me this
afternoon that he sees the U.S. ROP in the early phases of a long upswing -
that the crisis that began in 1973 is over.

>in conjunction with your comments on the pointlessness of translation
>perhaps your objection to my endeavors (I dont mean this in a personal
>sense) is that you reject the validity of Marx's division between
>productive/unproductive activities in which case the need for tedious
>calculations of who is and isnt productive vanish and categories such as
>variable capital collapse into readily available conventional categories
>such as total employee remuneration. Is this the numb of your position
>and if so should we be debating the issue of the relevance of the
>productive/unproductive labour divison?

Yes, I'm not sure how important that distinction is, you're right. We see a
rising ROP in the U.S., but the "unproductive" share is larger than ever.

Doug




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---