Marxist economics

Jim Jaszewski jjazz at
Sun Oct 8 17:56:11 MDT 1995

On Fri, 6 Oct 1995 Steve.Keen at wrote:

> "The proposed contention is based on two arguments drawn from Marx's
> writings. First, labor-time calculation remains valid in the socialist
> economy. Second, technological innovations continue to take place--
> at an even faster rate... Taking these two arguments into
> consideration, Marx's theory implies that the socialist economy
> would also be afflicted by the falling-rate-of-return law." (p. 293)
> Khalil concludes that:
> "Either Marx's theory is about the contradictions of production
> in general and, hence, cannot serve as the scientific grounding
> of revolutionary politics, or the theory is untenable as an
> explanatory proposition of economic crises." (p. 307)

	I don't see how the conclusions necessarily follow from the
premises.  Don't `socialist Relations of Production' imply that -- even
considering the objective nature of the FROP across ALL social formations
-- the means will then exist (which don't now) to distribute the Social
Product in ways which will negate the negative effects of FROP, as we are
presently enslaved to it?? 

	Why would this `make untenable' the `scientific-ness' of our need
to get rid of this Monster of Production?  The very nature of FROP under
THIS particular system leads, according to all objective observation, to
crises of a magnitude never imaginable previously.  I don't see how
hypothetical problems with it under socialism obviate the analysis (and
ridding) of it under its `present manifestation'... 

	Another `Forest for the Trees' problem here??

| Jim Jaszewski <jjazz at>     PGP Public Key available. |
|                      |

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list