[OPE-L:2136] Re: Why is Malthus correct on unproductive labor, according to Marx?

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2000 - 11:22:53 EST

[ show plain text ]

I disagree. I have rarely found different of editions of Capital to
change an understanding of Marx. Even the Vintage re-translation versus
the standard translation did not in the final analysis make much
difference, except the newly published material on formal and real
subsumption of labor to capital. This case is another instance: it
doesn't make a difference whether that editor's footnote on Malthus is
there or not -- even Jerry doesn't think it makes a difference in the
reading of Marx's text.

Generally, we intellectuals tend to get too hung up on issues of textual
exigency, as far as I am concerned.

Thanks for the Coontz reference, Jerry.


Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, web site
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

On 01/13/00 at 07:13 AM, Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu> said:

>The "moral" that I was trying to suggest is that in the interests of
>scholarship, one should examine the more scholarly collection of Marx's
>writings (although not necessarily the _CW_; perhaps the best source, in
>German, is MEGA).
>But, I think the context of the quote indicates that he was really
>referring to Smith's perspectives (this, also, is what the _CW_ note

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:07 EST