Oh well, it's silent. In 4031, Paul Z wrote: > > >I do not think that the reproduction schema can be reinvigorated by >allowing for the possibility of exchange at production prices. I do thank you for encouraging me to understand the strengths of Luxemburg's criticism; it seems that many Marxists had come to understand Bauer's reply as decisive. > However, >Grossman (his own spelling of his name when he wrote in English or French >or Polish (see Rick Kuhn, *RPE*, Volume 18 -- constantly spelling his name >in the German reinforces, in my opinion, a very common belief that Henryk >Grossman was of German origin) Wouldn't want to do that to Henryck. > and Mattick, Sr. seem to be making a good >point re value and production prices. Yes, it is important not to conflate Bauer's criticism of Luxemburg with Grossmann/Mattick Sr's. It seems to me a major chapter in the history of Marxian thought which is not dealt with adequately by Howard and King, as you noted earlier. They seem both unfair to Luxemburg and unaware of the specifities of Grossmann's criticism. > >On Bauer, Grossman may have thought that there were a lot of limitations >to his work, but he surely put this Austro-Marxist at a higher plane of >analysis than the revolutionary Marxist of Polish origin Rosa Luxemburg. On the one hand, Grossmann found Bauer's scheme superior to Marx's reproduction schema; on the other hand, he does single out several of its assumptions which need to be relaxed for any realistic analysis. That is, he praises Bauer for demonstrating better than Marx that the expanded reproduction of the capitalist system is indeed possible without a permanent consumption deficit (and here you do not think Bauer was as successful as Grossmann does); on the other hand, he himself does not confuse this superior model of reality for the reality of the model even if Grossmann's critics forget this. The extension of the model is only the first step in the isolation of a tendency implicit in capital accumulation towards the breakdown of the system. Mattick argued that G's use of B's scheme even as a first step did in fact have the effect of reifying the model, giving the impression that equilibrium growth was a real force at work in the accumulation of capital and thus needlessly conceding too much to the harmonists. That is, in trying to use the scheme for more than disproving the necessity of underconsumption, that is, in working with it as a model, no matter how imperfect, of the accumulation process which must end in breakdown, Grossmann is in no position to deny the equilibrium possibilities of accumulation demonstrated in the scheme. I think Mattick here has a point; at the same time, rightly or wrongly, Grossmann wants to ground his analysis of crisis and breakdown in value alone and thus abstracts from several real forces of disequilibrium on the use value side,e.g., the *technical* differences between the two departments which Bauer must simply eliminate in practical terms if his his model is to work as a counter-critique of Luxemburg. Of course you develop this at length in your accumulation paper. I do not know what Grossmann made of Bauer's work on the national question and general economic questions. There is a whole chapter on Bauer's early analysis of the capitalist limits to rationalization in Rosdolsky who praises it heavily. It does seem to me to a rather brilliant analysis, as Rosdolsky says. And as I have mentioned to Rick, there is a story by Christina Stead in which a character created in Grossmann's image battles it out with a social democrat in Bauer's image over the radicalism of (i believe) jewish workers--it's been a while since i read the story. It seems to have been written soon after Stead and her husband Blake befriended Grossmann who was then being further marginalized by Horkheimer as the Frankfurt school moved to Columbia. It seems that Grossmann considered the social democrat Bauer to be a life long antagonist to the revolutionary marxism he was developing, all the while respecting his acumen. There is also the false impression that Grossmann considered Hilferding a crass political opportunist and not a thinker of the first rank. But I look forward to Rick's reconstruction of all this. All the best, rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST