Marx principle

In this Appendix we derive the analytical expression for the energy resolution of a low-bandpass spectrometer like TOSCA ( 3.1) (also known as crystal analyser spectrometers) and describe two key features of the design ( 3.2), time focussing ( 3.2.1) and the Marx principle ( 3.2.2) that improve the resolution at high and low energy transfer respectively. 

Fig. A3.2 Illustration of the Marx principle. Scattered neutrons of the same energy are reflected by differently oriented crystallites in the analyser and focused on to the same detector. The focal circle for the fifth detector is shown.

The Marx principle improves the resolution at low energy transfer. The reason for this is that all scattered neutrons of the same energy have the same t thus reducing the uncertainty in the final energy, which is a large contribution at low energy transfer. 

Note that the Marx principle is more restrictive than time focussing in the latter all that is necessary is that the sample, analyser and detector planes are parallel, in the former the planes must not only be parallel but the sample and detector planes must also be co-planar. Time and energy focussing are so successfiil that all current and planned crystal analyser spectrometers employ it. The only exception is the forward scattering bank on TOSCA where limitations on space meant that the detectors were placed slightly downstream from the sample plane. In practice, the displacement is small enough that the resolution is essentially the same in both the forward and backscattering detector banks. 

A. It rs one of my principles to always say "Merci" if a favor is done me. Since I had to give gifts to Party agencies, I couldn t very well send them Karl Marx. That is why f had to send them some National Sociahst books. 

As part of this assessment, the structure of the scalar multiplier framework is further developed, together with the relationship between the Kalecki principle and Marx s value categories. 

Key passages in Marx s writings that demonstrate the role of the Kalecki principle in relation to the circulation of money are in chapter 17 of Capital, volume 2 (see Sardoni 1989 211). Starting with the case of simple reproduction, Marx considers the circulation of money using the example of an individual capitalist. During the first year he advances a money capital of 5,000, let us say, in payment for means of production ( 4,000) and for... 

Under expanded reproduction, surplus value is clearly realized by capital investment and capitalists consumption. Hence for Sardoni (1989 214), Capitalists profits therefore now depend on their consumption and investment expenditure, just as in Kalecki s analysis. There is strong evidence for the Kalecki principle, that capitalists earn what they spend, operating in Marx s analysis of expanded reproduction. 

Whichever interpretation is correct, Kalecki s silence on the labour theory of value leaves open the theoretical possibility that its relevance can be fruitfully explored. To relate Kalecki s model of reproduction to Marx s theory, a reconfiguration is required of the definition of profits. The problem, as we have seen, is that Kalecki s model requires a gross definition of profits that is different from Marx s category of surplus value. The Kalecki principle has not been precisely demonstrated in the context of Marx s reproduction schema, in which surplus value is the key category of analysis. 

To apply the Kalecki principle directly to Marx s schema, attention can be focused on an important difference between Marx and Kalecki about the way in which investment is specified. Whereas for Kalecki investment is associated specifically with the capital-goods producing department, for... 

Although Sardoni (1989 211) mentions these different specifications of investment in his comparison of Marx and Kalecki, he does not highlight their importance. To demonstrate the importance of this difference, the Leontief input-output framework can again be used to model the final demand of each department of production such that investment demand cuts across departments. This Leontief interpretation of the reproduction schema allows Marx s categories to be retained alongside the Kalecki principle. 

It should also be emphasized that this adaptation of the Kalecki system represents an interpretation of the reproduction schema that is consistent with Marx s system. As Lee (1998) has argued, Kalecki has a restrictive production model in which each department is vertically integrated, producing its own raw materials. In contrast, Marx assumes that raw materials are a part of constant capital, produced in the first department and circulated to other departments. A failure to fully take into account connections between industries leaves the Kalecki system vulnerable to a SrafFian critique. Steedman (1992), for example, has lambasted the Kaleckian price system for the absence of multisectoral relationships. By establishing the Kalecki principle in an input-output context, an interpretation of the reproduction schema is possible in which linkages between industries are taken seriously. 

Where money is considered, its role in this Sraffian interpretation of Marx is limited. For Saad-Filho (2002 24), As the analysis is primarily concerned with the relationship between the value and price systems, money has no autonomous role and, when considered at all, it is merely a numeraire. A key defence of Marx s theory, against the Sraffian critique, is to argue that the Srafffians do not take money seriously. An alternative strand of value theory that corrects this mistake is the value-form tradition, which emphasised the importance of money for value analysis, because value only appears in and through price (ibid. 27). As a way of testing the possibility that money can be taken seriously in the input-output approach, it can be explored how the preceding analysis of the Kalecki principle can be reconciled with the value-form approach. 

What sets this circuit approach apart is its institutionally relevant analysis of the relationship between banks, firms and workers. A model of the circuit of money is developed in which prime importance is placed upon the role of banks in financing industrial activities. Central to this approach is an application of the Kalecki principle, that capitalists earn what they spend the question being how an injection of money can circulate around the economy and return back to the capitalists. Moreover, how is this circuit of money intertwined with the activities of industrial sectors And how much money is required for the circuit to be complete Marx s reproduction schema provides a natural starting point for addressing these questions. 

For Nell, this approach closely resembles the first of Marx s solutions in Capital, volume 2, to the problem of establishing where the money comes from to service the gap between the amount advanced by capitalists and the amount M they receive as income.2 As we saw in Chapter 3, Marx addresses this issue by positing that capitalists advance the amount M -M in addition to M. Under the Kalecki Principle, M —M is the amount of money cast into circulation by capitalists in order to realize profits. Ignoring for simplicity the role of capitalist consumption, this amount is required to purchase additional quantities of capital. Hence, capitalists advance the whole of M. On this view, theoretically, it is correct to speak of M becoming M, but in practice there is no initial sum of money, M, followed later by a larger sum, M there is only M (ibid. 207). In the single swap approach this advance of money is sufficient to fund total income in one run of the monetary circuit. 

Luxemburg therefore identifies the Kalecki principle in Marx s reproduction schema if the capitalists themselves have set in motion all the money which circulates in society, they must also advance the money needed for the realization of their own surplus value (ibid. 98). Under simple reproduction, this money is earned from the extraction of surplus value in previous periods, but in the current period of production capitalists clearly earn what they spend (the Kalecki principle). So long as there is sufficient money cast into circulation for capitalist consumption, together with the mechanism of mutual exchange, all goods are sold in the market place. Under simple reproduction, as summarized by Howard and King (1989 107), There is no deficiency in the demand for either department s output, and no reason why production should not continue at this level in later periods. ... 

A different reading of Capital, volume 3, can be suggested, in which questions of realization are the main focus of analysis (see Rosenthal 1999). Thus far, in applying the Kalecki principle to Marx s circulation of money, we have assumed that monetary outlays take place, funding the purchase of all capital and consumption requirements. However, as capital expands, the volume of profits accumulates to such an extent that stringent demands are placed upon the economic system in terms of the amount of money that has to be cast into circulation for realization of these profits. Marx places realization problems at the centre of his analysis of the falling rate of profit. 

This multiplier further establishes the consistency between the Kalecki principle, that capitalists earn what they spend, and Marx s theory of surplus value. Since in (8.11)/= u + /, it follows that... 

Trigg, A.B. (2002) Surplus value and the Kalecki principle in Marx s reproduction schema , History of Economics Review, 35 104-14. Trigg, A.B. (2002) Surplus value and the Keynesian multiplier , Review of Radical Political Economics, 34(1) 55-65. 

Following the interpretation of the Kalecki principle in Chapter 3, profits and investment are defined in net terms. This approach is consistent with Marx s category of surplus value, in contrast to the gross definition of profits adopted by Kalecki. 

Batuev. .. observes that the. .. theory ignores the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. Neither Marx nor Lenin seems to have published any work on the H bond. (A footnote from Pimentel and McClellan, 1960.)... 

His response to the question Why do we do science is that, in part, it is to satisfy curiosity about the workings of nature, but it is also to contribute to the liberation from the necessity of industrial labor. With characteristic optimism, he regards the new revolution of digital technology as enhancing the prospects for a society based on the principles enunciated by Marx, a society whose members are freed from the necessity of arduous labor—this, as a result of the application of technological advances made possible by science. 

---