This is very important point Alejandro is making. A lot of debates within and for/against Marx became "frozen" one way or another around the turn of the twentieth century. I found that with regard to "accumulation of capital": it became "frozen" by Lenin's interpretation and by the smashing of Luxemburg's work. Even "anti-Leninists" are often unaware of how the terms of this discussion were set up a century ago. To answer Steve, sorry, but I won't be struggling with your *Journal of the History of Economic Thought* pieces. I decided a long time ago to work WITHIN Marxism as I understand its foundations and I consider one of its foundations that labor power is the source of value production. Paul Z. *********************************************************************** Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka Alejandro Ramos <aramos@btl.net> said, on 10/24/00: >The idea that we may have a theoretical construction which "would render >reference to labor values superfluous even though Marx's substantive >claims about the exploitative nature of capitalist profits are affirmed" >is certainly not new. >It was expressed in very clear terms by Tugan Baranowsky 100 years ago, >and he did provide a variant of such theoretical construction at that >time. >This was framed within an important intellectual current of the epoch in >which neo-Kantianism had a strong influence on Socialdemocratic >intellectuals. So, I'm not "charging" you of this. (BTW, this is not a >court!) Simply, I'm trying to understand the position of your proposed >thought experiment in the set of ideas.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST