Dus’an Pokorn);

“Marxian economics as ‘general equilibrium ’ theory, ” indicating at the same time that, at least for the purpose of the discussion, ‘general equilib-rium ’ as an adjective was synonymous with ‘neoclassical ’ (1981, 121, 123). However, while modem economic theories no doubt provide many a clue to the propositions of classical political economy, an analytical rever-sal of the natural time stream is never without limitations. Some of these limitations-important, I believe, for an understanding of Marx-are the subject of the discussion that follows. 2. From the abstract to the concrete $2.1 In dealing with Professor Hollander’s point, we may begin by considering Marx’s price theory as an instance of the abstract-to-concrete to the concrete (197 la, 206), what he seems to mean is this. He starts with a simple but fundamental universal proposition, a theorem, intended to explain a range (class) of phenomena. Then he shows that, as it stands, the theorem is too abstract (too poor in content) to do the job. Therefore it becomes necessary to introduce a more particular consideration-that is, to add a further determination that may be understood as negation. * But this does not mean that the initial proposition was altogether false, or that the additional one, taken by itself, is true. Rather, the more particular statement is allowed to add content to the more abstract one, so that the latter becomes conceptually richer and therefore better equipped to explain the phenomena concerned. But even the resulting, combined proposition may still be found too abstract. Then, another round of ‘mediation ’ is set in motion, and so on-until the process is deemed to yield a system o