[ show plain text ]
As I argue in my paper I think one element is that Marx himself had an
ambiguity in his definition of "accumulation of capital" and in his
reproduction schemes. The second element is that Marx's work is not that
easy to digest in its depth and years separated the publication of Vol. 2
from 1, and 3 from 1 and 2. (Lenin was a Marxist five years before 3 came
out, for example.) The third element is that bourgeois conceptions were
and are out there for the picking (consciously or unconsciously).
Paul
P.S. Andrew, I will get to your earlier questions to me either later
today or tomorrow.
*************************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, on OS/2 and supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Andrew_Kliman wrote:
> A reply to OPE-L 2948:
>
> Riccardo: "P.S. Andrew, do you have some short and clear answer why what
> triumphed after the death of Marx was a continued series of
> misrepresantions of his value and accmumulation and crisis theory?"
>
> I think this overstates the case to some degree. For instance, it is
> only since the 1970s that physicalism/simultaneism can be said to have
> triumphed.
>
> To the extent that what you're saying is true, my answer is:
>
> (a) The misrepresentations help reinforce capitalist class rule. (I
> realize functional explanations are insufficient, but I'm keeping this
> short, as you requested.)
>
> (b) Misrepresentations aren't recognized, acknowledged, and repudiated,
> because interpretations aren't tested empirically against the whole of
> Marx's work.
>
> Andrew Kliman
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:45 EDT