[Marxism] Hiya there: question about
hyl0morphster at googlemail.com
Tue Feb 5 12:54:18 MST 2013
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.
On 05/02/13 16:59, MMBKG2 wrote:
> 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.
> - xx
More information about the Marxism