From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Jul 26 2006 - 18:17:21 EDT
>It isn't clear to me that Marx's thinking changed - it extended. The >reproduction schemes of V2 are his last major development of the theory >of capital because the notes on credit never got anywhere. Notice >particularly that the V2 Pt 3 stuff was written well after the V3 >transformation stuff so the modern 'transformation problem' was unknown >to Marx. >Chris Chris and Jurriaan, As I remember Tribe's argument (read about a year and a half ago), Marx's study of Quesnay did allow for a reorganization of his materials; first the different forms of capital could now be placed in terms of the whole and secondly Quesnay allowed Marx to set up an accounting system for the measurement of surplus value in the course of the reproduction of total capital. Without the Physiocrats Marx would have been lost in a morass of detail-- as he often was in the Grundrisse. It's no secret from whom Tribe is drawing. I just don't know of any specific refutation of Tribe/Grossman on this point. Yours, Rakesh >On 25 Jul 2006, at 16:30, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >>>Thanks to those who responded. >>>On Jerry's point. Notwithstanding the Verwertung problem Nicolaus is I >>>think better than CW. One problem with CW 28/29 is that the two bits >>>were translated by different people with inconsistencies. ALso CW 29 >>>209 has reified instead of objectified which is quite a bad mistake. >>>But I will have to compare systematically >>>Chris >> >>Hi Chris, >>will be very interested of what you make of Tribe's argument that >>Marx's thinking changes after the Grundrisse with the discovery of >>Quesnay's theory of re-production. Anyone's thoughts on this would >>be appreciated. >>Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT