[Marxism] Re: State capitalism: some quick replies to Joe and Phil
juliohuato at hotmail.com
Thu Dec 16 08:56:07 MST 2004
Matías Scaglione wrote:
>Capital is a historical social relation. Labor is an "element of the real
Louis Proyect used a conventional term that has a definite conventional
meaning. I was just trying to clarify its correct use. In defense of
Louis, using that term (including my clarification) doesn't conflict with
the idea that capital -- in the Marxist sense -- is a social relation, or
that labor is the use of labor power, etc.
>The neoclassical mix capital-labor (see Wicksteed, J.B. Clark and their
>amnesic heirs) is just a formalization of the vulgar, senseless and
>apologetic "trinity formula" already destroyed by classical political
>economy (see Capital volume III, ch. 48).
Who is mixing up "capital" and "labor"? And where's the vulgarity,
senseless, and apologetics in using the concept of factor intensity? Change
the labels if you prefer: "the ratio of means of production to labor power,
both in their respective physical units." Big deal. And if it's already
been destroyed by classical political economy, then why worry?
>Marginalism is interested in exchange, not in production.
What do you mean by marginalism? The idea of marginal change is an
application of the calculus notion of infinitesimal change. Do you have a
problem with calculus? Modern conventional ("bourgeois") economics doesn't
even use calculus to make the point.
Anyway, I support Louis' right to use the concept of factor intensity in his
writings. It's a conventional term that many people (including
non-Marxists) understand. As long as he uses it correctly, there should be
no problem with it.
More information about the Marxism