paul bullock wrote: > Dear Paul Z. > > Since this book is not available to my knowledge in English I can't help > you, nor would it appear that David can. It seems to me that if one can't > see the difference between Marx and Ricardo from reading them then no one is > going to be able to help! ______________________ Schumpeter was quite right when he said that Marx had a master and it was Ricardo. I think Sieber may be suggesting something very much like Schumpeter when he said that Marx followed in Ricardo's foot steps. This does not mean that either of them meant that Marx followed Ricardo in McCulloch's fashion. He was a critical and innovative student is something beyond dispute. The question is of more in-depth and essential nature. Is Sraffa is a follower of Ricardo? As a matter of fact one can argue that Sraffa's PCMC is much farther from Ricardo's Principles than Marx's Capital in its core economic theory. Just to give an interesting twist to this discussion, Althusser's contribution to Marxism was to suggest that Marx's scientific theory was a synchronic theory rather than a diachronic theory as suggested by the Hegelian Marxists. If you look at Sraffa, he brings out the synchronic nature of Marx's economic theory better than anybody else. Cheers, ajit sinha > It is not reasonable to expect Marx to have tried > to answer or correct every view that didn't make the distinction clear. As > a politician he would be looking for support for scientific socialism and > Seiber was popularising his works... perhaps you could do us all a favour > and show why Seiber was doing what you say, ie what the nature of the > 'closeness' he argued was between the two? Then you could show why he was > wrong. > > Paul B. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu> > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> > Date: 12 December 2000 04:54 > Subject: [OPE-L:4680] Re: Re: David Yaffe on Ricardo and Marx > > >Paul B. > > > >Thanks for your reaction. I am sympathetic to your statement of a big > >break between Ricardo and Marx. The problem is that Sieber's 1871 book > >which Marx read (you refer to the later 1885 edition after Marx had died) > >doesn't suggest such a big break. Marx praises the book in the 1873 > >German Afterword and in his 1881 notes on Wagner -- even noting the one > >can understand the difference between Ricardo and himself (Marx) from > >reading Sieber! Pretty dramatic, isn't it? I think we need to explain > >this dissonance, not ignore it or simply assert that Marx was not a > >Ricardian and move on. (I'm a bit surprised David Yaffe has not yet > >reacted as it was his intro that caused the issue to come to the fore) > > > >Paul Z. > > > >*********************************************************************** > >Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at > >******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST