Jerry writes in 5765 >Gary asks in [5763]: > >> I'd be interested to hear what other listmembers think about this >connection between Ricardo and >Marx, since so much Marxist hostility to the >Sraffian tradition stems from the belief that it inappropriately attempts >to "transform > Marx into Ricardo" (as one TSSer has put it). < > >Let me begin with noting an agreement: I certainly >agree that Marx held Ricardo in far higher >regard than 'Parson Malthus'. Indeed, Marx >displays the utmost contempt for Malthus (perhaps >second only to his contempt for the 'stupid' J. >B. Say). Isn't Marx most contemptuous of Malthus' population theory (the greatest calumy ever heaped on the human race or some such what unforgettable line though alas I have forgotten) while at the same time underlining that Ricardo could only respond with forced abstractions and his followers with pathetic word games in the face of Malthus's valid objections? Ricardo made a scientific leap forward, but could not complete it. Malthus took this as license to return to preSmithian theory, but the license was granted by the actual disintegration of the Ricardian school. Marx did not try to dance around "Malthus' analytics" (to use Gary's expression) as Ricardo's followers had. So Marx's critique of political economy begins with the problems that the Ricardian school could not solve...as Malthus and other critics demonstrated. I don't see how Marx's theoretical efforts make sense without recognition of the scientific or objective validity of the criticisms made by Malthus and others of Ricardo. It's been a while since I read Peach's book, but my sense was that he is not as critical of Ricardo as he is of what he thinks to be Sraffa's (mis)-interpretation of Ricardo. I'll look for Gary's review in a couple of months. bye, rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT