Dear Paul I think you are making overmuch of all this. Many writers sympathetic in different degrees have made comments about Marx following on, continuing etc Ricardo's work. eg McClelland, whose biography of Marx .. plus all his other work including the first translations of parts of the Grundrisse , must put him down as very sympathetic indeed to marx, and of understanding Marx's method as substantially different from Ricardo's!..... In the Biography...taken alone .. p344 in my Macmillan p/b ed.- on the 'Economics' - he could easily be interpreted as viewing Marx as 'following' Ricardo.... yet clearly he would not regard him as Ricardian! It is indisputable that Marx had much to thank ricardo for (as did Beethoven to Haydn, but this hardlty makes the former the latter!) since Marx took what had been discussed about the regulating role of labour in the economy to date and explained the issues SUCCESSULLY with a different method. best wishes Paul B. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Cc: David Smith <emerald@lark.cc.ukans.edu>; Paresh Chattopadhyay <r25030@nobel.si.uqam.ca> Date: 16 December 2000 01:46 Subject: [OPE-L:4709] Re: Re: David Yaffe on Ricardo and Marx >I suspected that sooner or later someone would ask for line and verse from >Sieber vis-a-vis Marx. > >First, the later, more thorough citation from Marx on Sieber (later than >the 1873 Afterword): > >-->"Mr. Wagner could have familiarized himself with the difference between >me and Ricardo both from Capital and from Sieber's work (if he knew >Russian)" (Marx, "Notes on Wagner", 1881, completed after January, 1881, >p. 534). > >Now for 1871 Sieber's book (i.e., what Marx was reading), as translated >for David Smith [not yet in print, please do NOT quote!]: > >-->"only one step divided the approach to the problem by Ricardo's school >[what is value?] from the definition of the subject that fits best by >clarity, conciseness and specification. Marx should be given credit for >creating such a definition, alongside with a number of the most >significant additions to the well-know theory..." [Chapter IV, "Marx's >theory of value and money"] > >and 10-15 pages later we read, after Sieber's summary of Marx: > >-->"This brief excerpt from the first chapter of Marx's book and addendum >contain, if we are not mistaken, the most significant features of the >author's doctrine about value and general properties of money... As for >the theory, the method Marx uses is a deductive method of the English >school..." > >and one-half page later, before further summary: > >-->Marx's theory "contains the following new and significant scientific >statements which give to Ricardo's theory more complete and polished form >and validate it with new proofs." > >Furthermore, Sieber's 1877 article, which Marx possessed [Marx to Nikolai >Danielson, 15 November 1878: "I have seen nothing, save what you sent me >in 1877 (one article of Sieber and other, I think, of Michailoff, both in >the Fatherlandish Annals, in reply to that queer would-be Encyclopedist -- >Mr Joukowski)." CW, Vol.45, p. 343-44] reads: > >-->'*Capital* is nothing but a continuation and a development of the same >principles on which the doctrine of Smith and Ricardo is founded.'" (N. I. >Ziber, *lzbrannye ekonomicheshie proizvedeniia* (M, 1959), vol. 1, p. >556), quotation from Walicki (1979, pp. pp. 436-37) who is quoting the >1959 edition with Sieber's 1877 article. > >Of course, any and all of us can say that there is a radical separation >between Ricardo and Marx. But how do you defend such a position in the >face of Marx reading Sieber and NOT making a big deal of Sieber's >"failure" (such as it is) to notice such a radical separation? Sieber >seems to be quite clearly saying that Marx followed upon Ricardo (whatever >we like it or not). > >Recall that I am asking a question for which I do NOT know an answer, but >wish I had one! > >Paul Z. > >*********************************************************************** >Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at >******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka > > >"Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said, on 12/15/00: > >>So it seems to be misleading to say (based on Marx's comments on Sieber) >>that "Marx followed in Ricardo's footsteps". Paul Z., would you please >>clarify: "followed" in what specific sense(s) (besides having a >>"deductive" method)? > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST