[ show plain text ]
A brief reply to bits of OPE-L 2969. I hope to return to the rest soon.
Paul Zarembka writes: "Bauer, Eckstein, and Pannekoek rushed to print
almost immediately after [RL's] work was published. They didn't even
have enough time to digest a 475-page, intense theoretical work. ...
After her murder, Bukharin undertook what could be called a serious
hachet job."
You began by *comparing* the treatment of RL's _Accumulation_ and the
treatment of the TSS interpretation of Marx's value theory. But now the
comparison has dropped out of your end of the discussion.
As bad as you think the treatment of RL was, the treatment of the TSS
interpretation has been much worse. Note that RL's critics
*sought* to answer her, and *in print*. That allows readers to know
about the existence of her work, and allows them to form their own
estimation of the arguments, as you are doing even today.
What happened to the TSS interpretation was that discovery after
discovery was ignored, brushed aside with offhand *verbal* remarks, or --
finally, finally -- discussed on a PRIVATE e-mail list. Its opponents
have in the main tried mightily to keep from having a public debate.
When acting as journal referees, they haven't encouraged publication of
TSS work together with their criticisms. Instead, they make private
criticisms, which they use to reject the publication of TSS work. And
because they keep the criticisms private, this hinders our ability to
respond to and refute them. It is a very dirty business.
In my reply I was trying to guess at what you meant by "May I apply your
wording to Luxemburg's _Accumulation of Capital_ ... rather than to TSS?"
and to answer the question. After reading your response to me, I still
do not understand what you meant by the question. Could you please
clarify?
"who is VIL?"
Lenin. I was referring to the quote in your paper immediately above the
quote from Froelich.
Paul wrote:
: Perhaps I could clarify by saying that the problem is the LACK of
: definition of "accumulation of capital" in Marx (unlike many other
: concepts he introduced for the first time).
That much I understood. What I don't understand is what is the
definitional *problem*. In other words, say that I agree there's a lack
of a definition. So what?
Paul wrote:
: If I recall, Dunayevskaya also cites this passage ["transition from
simple reproduction"] and so I should be getting to it soon.
I don't remember her doing so, but I could be wrong.
Paul wrote:
: The refutations of the "notion that demand for means of production
cannot ultimately outstrip demand for consumer goods", i.e., demand
for means of production can ultimately outstrip demand for consumer
goods, are NOT accepted in my paper. I try to go one-by-one through
these arguments ...
Yes, but I didn't understand your answers. What seems to be going on is
that you don't accept the *realism* of the demonstrations; you want
additional restrictions to be imposed. So perhaps we can get to the
heart of the matter thus: WHAT *WOULD* YOU ACCEPT AS A DEMONSTRATION
THAT DEMAND FOR MEANS OF PRODUCTION CAN ULTIMATELY OUTSTRIP DEMAND FOR
CONSUMER GOODS? If you specify the restrictions you that require, I'll
try to show that the result can hold under these restrictions. I'm
confident I can do so given a reasonable set of restrictions.
Ciao,
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EDT