On Thu, 01 Jan 1970, you wrote: > 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! > Why should we be worried about Marx following on from Ricardo? The differences between them are relatively minor when compared to the differences between the two of them and most other economists. -- Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland 0141 330 3125 mobile:07946 476966 paul@cockshott.com http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/ http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST