Dear Paul Z All I know of this is that NI I Ziber or Sieber (both spellings appear in variors references to the man), 1844-1888 was an economic 'publicist', witing for radical liberal magazines , popularising marx;'s works. The key work that he wrote ' David ricardo and Karl Marx in their socio economic investigations' st Petersberg 1885, and found also in his CW's 2 vols 1900. He had translated David Ricardo's works by 1882 and I believe these translations contained summaries of Marx's views. Remember Russian was the FIRST language into which capital was translated after the German ed. in 1872 and its success in Russia was great and immediate. Marx started studying Russian seriously in 1870, so he was able to follow the debate after publication.. (remember the addendum to the second ed of Capital relating to Danielson's review). Lenin was born in1870. He did not have (own) a copy of Siebers 'David Ricardo...' until at least after December 1897 ( when he was in exile at Shushenskoye). However he uses it approvingly in writing various pieces at that time... ( and I cannot find reference to any other work of Seibers in Lenin) which incidentally might interest some of those involved in the current discussions here on line. eg Lenins Characteristics of Economic Romanticism., and On the Market Question. Unfortunately I don't have Russian so can't help... so I can't assess the notion that marx 'followed' Ricardo . We all know that the questions asked by Ricado were reformulated by Marx... is this 'following'... I don't really understand your question. Clearly both Lenin and Marx appreciated Seiber's work , but this doesn't make either of them a Ricardian. ... perhaps you could tell us what the meaning of 'followed' was in that context, your question is very speculative. this leads me to Jerry's question to me about fundamentalism. I use the term because I think the theory Marx developed stands, and by its nature can itself be applied to explain the development of capitalism. I did not say Marx had answered all the concrete questions facing him... only that he felt that he had built an approach, and answered so many key questions that there was quite enough to go on! Fundamentalism... again in my sense requires scientific application and development, but when so many academics in Universities spend so much of their time picking holes in Marx where there are none, one can either say one is for him, or as Marx said at one stage, one isn't ( that sort of) Marxist. In any case ther term orthodox was thrown at us when we were taking up the Neo Ricardians (actually oftern Smithians in many regards), so we took it up and said OK... Lenin did the same of course (although i hasted to add that no comparison is at al intended!!! ). Jerry - The 30,000 words I was refering to was the length of 'The Crisis and the Post war Boom'... did you read it? Paul Blk -----Original Message----- From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 06 December 2000 17:27 Subject: [OPE-L:4622] David Yaffe on Ricardo and Marx >David, > >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? > >Paul Z. > >************************************************************************* >Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at >********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka > >On 6 Dec 2000, Jerry Levy wrote: > >> The inventor of the velocitometer, David Yaffe, has joined OPE-L. >> Of course, David Y is known to many on this list for other accomplishments as >> well (see below). >> ... >> He provides us with the following (controversial?)introduction: >> ... >> Yet it was just at that time that many of the fundamental propositions >> developed by Marx in his critique of political economy were being >> challenged by a group of people in the CSE. They saw themselves as >> non-dogmatic and creative 'critics' of Marx and believed they were >> developing Marx's theoretical insights. We saw them quite differently. We >> argued that they were not simply 'revising' Marx but rejecting the >> scientific basis of his work. They represented a 'new' bourgeois school of >> thought - actually an old recurring one - located in the Ricardian >> tradition of political economy. Their views would inevitably undermine the >> revolutionary conclusions contained in Marx's work. That is why we, as >> 'orthodox' Marxists (they called us 'fundamentalists') vigorously opposed >> the neo-Ricardians in all forums of the CSE. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST