[Marxism] "Factor intensity" question [was State, capitalism...]
mdscaglione at yahoo.com.ar
Thu Dec 16 14:53:04 MST 2004
Regarding your last comments, it should be clear that I am not referring
to the arithmetic problems with the ratio K/L. The real problem appears
when you try to build a ratio with _two incommensurable categories_ (a
definite social relation and an ahistorical condition of production).
That's the main point of the controversy. If, on the other hand, you
agree with me that the letter K is tantamount of means of production,
then we have to reject the "marginalist's" or "economics'" theory of the
firm, theory of distribution, theory of capital, etc., and recognize
that if there is anything valuable in "marginalism", it is to be found
in the _sphere of exchange_. In other words, capital is not a "factor of
Julio Huato wrote:
> I stated that factor intensity is measured as a ratio. If the
> capital-labor ratio is comparatively high, one says it's
> "capital-intensive." And vice versa. That's all I wrote.
>> From this, which I meant as a correction to what -- most likely -- was a
> typo by Louis Proyect in his otherwise informative piece, Matías
> Scaglione presumes that I (but not Louis, who introduced the term)
> conflate the material process of production with its social form,
> adhere to some version of "marginalism," push false consciousness on
> the list, etc. How come?
> I don't know. Why is it correct to say that, on K/L, K is large
> relative to L *and* at the same time L is large relative to K while it
> is an ideological sin to say that this is a logical contradiction?
> Why my correction implies that capital is eternal and ahistorical, but
> Louis' use doesn't? Just because I didn't transcribe the three
> volumes of Capital in my posting? Well, neither did Louis...
> I feel discriminated against.
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
More information about the Marxism