re 4692 >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. Ajit, if I remember correctly, Schumpeter's comments on Marx's relation to Ricardo are blatantly contradictory even in the span of a few pages in History of Economic Analysis. And then throw in CSD. > 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. Well, Ajit, what did Marx mean that Ricardo paid no attention to the form of value and was thus unable to penetrate the mystery of money? If I remember correctly, Steedman's analysis of Marx on Ricardo in the Meek festschrift does not even take this question up! What do you think of Moishe Postone's interpretation of Marx as a profound critic of Ricardo? > 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. Do you mean synchronic in a structuralist, Levi Straussian manner? What does synchronic mean? Why are you ruling out the diachronic interpretation of Marx by deVroey in the Value Controversy, ed Steedman, Sweezy? Yours, Rakesh Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST