Subject: Re: SUBJECTIVITY, HEGEL'S ABSOLUTE, SELF-EXPANDING CAPITAL From: wpc-AT-clyder.gn.apc.org (Paul Cockshott) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 08:13:58 PDT Rakesh writes ------------- The self-expansion of capital cannot be questioned; the tendency towards an equilibrium growth path is another question altogether Paul ---- There is a possible contradiction in this sentence. Possible, since the terminology in the first and second clauses are drawn from different theoretical frameworks, so that their connection and thus contradiction is more implicit than explicit. But on the assumption that they are meant for form a single argument, lets look at the implications. By talking of an equilibrium growth path in this context, one is led to assume that you are talking in terms of path of equilibrium growth of the value of the aggregate capital in a society; as opposed to the standard terminology of growth economics in which it is not explicitly values but use values that are the subject of interest. If we take this interpretation your sentence reads: "The self-expansion of capital cannot be questioned; but the tendency towards an equilibrium growth path for of social capital is another question altogether" Thus either: the sentence contradicts itself, by questioning for social capital what is asserted for capital in general: if there is not even a tendency towards an equilibrium growth, this implies the possibility of tendencies towards contraction, or just chaotic fluctuations. Or: the capital refered to at the begining is not capital in general, but capital in the specific cycle of converting money -> labour-power -> commodities ->more money If it is the latter, then there are no contradictions and your statement is unexceptionable, since asserting the existence of the cycle m-c-m' doesnot imply that the double cycle m-c-m'-c'-m'' must exist. It is explicit in Marx's analysis of money that the circuit of commodities c-m-c can be interrupted by the formation of hoards- the invalidity of Say's law. To deduce the double cycle from the single, one has to assume Say's law. If we consider the aggregate social capital, it is made up of a number of individual capitals whose cycles will be, to use laser terminology, incoherent, i.e., in random phase alignment, and the effect of summing over these is analogous to summing over a series of connected double cycles m-c-m'-c'-m''. Only if the latter is predominant will the aggregate capital expand. We can go further than this, and say that even for an individual capital, if we consider the time integral over a series of cycles, we can only assert that it is necessarily self expanding value if a) Say's law holds b) the capitalist does not chose to spend all his profits on fine houses, fine wines, horses and servants --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005