Paul Z, 'How do you reconcile the fact that Marx has a high regard for the work of N. Sieber (who wrote a book published in Russian in 1871 which Marx read and recommended highly; he also wrote articles in the 1870s on Marx's theories) even as Sieber explicitly wrote (and Marx read) that Marx was following in Ricardo's footsteps? In other words, if Sieber was wrong, why did Marx praise Sieber's work and why didn't Marx correct Sieber?' You mode of questioning is not fruitful. I cannot ask Marx why he didn't correct Sieber. Perhaps because he was the first to popularise and defend Marx's writings in Russia - quite a useful ally in the circumstances. But might I quote something to you which perhaps throws some light on the issue: 'Mr Wagner could have familiarised himself with the difference between me and Ricardo both from Capital and from Sieber's work (if he knew Russian). Ricardo did indeed concern himself with labour solely as a measure of the magnitude of value, and therefore unable to find any link between his theory of value and the nature of money.' Marx/Engels Collected Works Vol 24 p534 There were clear issues at stake in the debate between us and the Neo-Ricardians, as there were between Marx and Ricardo. Our differences concerned the theory of value, money, capital, the falling rate of profit and productive and unproductive labour as well as the transformation problem etc, in short everything fundamental to Marx's position. I know very little about Sieber - I do not read Russian - but Marx's position seems in line with what I have argued. David Yaffe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST