[ show plain text ]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 19:31:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@mmp.Princeton.EDU>
Thank you for the reply Jerry. Sorry for the delayed reply. I was out of town.
>Marx only _initially_ abstracts from credit-money, but goes on to
>explicitly analyze that subject in Volume 3 (see Chapters 32-33).
Yes, I was trying to speak to the controversy over Marx's treatment of
money in volume I. I was suggesting that Marx initially restricted himself
to commodity money in order to isolate the relations of production for
intensive analysis. This then allows him to analyze the operations of
credit money--its limits and possibilites. I argue that Mattick then
developed the analysis of government creation of credit money in particular
that remained (and remains) one of the great unsolved problems in Marxist
theory.
>It is misleading to claim that a diminution in the rate of accumulation
>in the private sector occasioned by an increase in spending by the state
>sector is a "contradiction inherent in capitalist production" which "need
>not be visible in market events".
I am sorry if I have misrepresented the arugment. Diminution in rate of
accumulation is *not* occasioned by an increase in state spending; it is
however only temporarily compensated for thereby. The diminution may not be
visible in the market however for some time due to the issue of credit
money by the state.
>One last comment: you often refer in your post to what Mattick (Sr)
>"demonstrated". I think that it would have been better to provide fuller
>quotes and citations from PM so that we (the readers) can decide for
>ourselves to what extent he "demonstrated" or "showed" certain points.
This is a fair criticism of my submission of a post from a larger paper to
the list; in the paper itself there are footnotes (both for the purposes
of reference and emendation).
Thanks again for the comments
Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:45 EDT