[Marxism] Hiya there: question about

Philip Dunn hyl0morphster at googlemail.com
Tue Feb 5 12:54:18 MST 2013


Yo MMBKG2!

Simultaneous valuation vs. the exploitation theory of profit
Author: Kliman, Andrew J Source: Capital & Class 97-112 no. 73 (Spring 
2001): p. 97-112 ISSN: 0309-8168 Number: 70073393 Copyright: Copyright 
Conference of Socialist Economists Spring 2001

Roemer (1981: 19) first states that reproduction requires that no stock 
be run down to zero. He notes correctly that one way of 'assuring' 
this-i.e., one sufficient condition for reproducibility-is to postulate 
that all physical surpluses are non-- negative in every period. Yet 
immediately thereafter, he pronounces this postulate a 'requirement' for 
reproducibility -i.e., a necessary condition. It is easy to show that 
this is incorrect.

http://libcom.org/library/Simultaneous-valuation-exploitation-theory-marxist-humanism


On 05/02/13 16:59, MMBKG2 wrote:
>
>
> Heya,
>
> So I'm not really interested in the "corrections" made to Marxist theory by the likes of Roemer and Elster, but I am interested in the prospect that game theory could be applied to Marxism. I am aware that an author named Bruce Philp wrote a book about trying to strip away the individualist assumptions of the rational choice Marxists while maintaining a game model, but I don't know how far he goes.
>
> Even before getting to the problematics of Roemer's attempt to provide a game-theoretic alternative account of exploitation (to replace the "broken" Law of Value), I've heard there is a massive logical flaw in Roemer's "Analytic Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory" where he confuses sufficient and necessary causes on something basic. Apparently this is a major premise in his work too.
>
> Anyway, I'm wondering how anyone else who has looked into this sees it, regarding Roemer or Philp or the topic in general.
> Anything else you could point me to would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - xx
>





More information about the Marxism mailing list