The article is a 1941 manuscript (*Capital and Class* doesn't tell you where it comes from), first published in 1969 in German original. The very first sentence is the type I find annoying in Grossman: "The dominant view of Marx is to regard him as a student of and successor to the Classical economists; as an economist who 'completed' that work". He then footnotes a pretty long list of culprits of whom LENIN IS NOT LISTED. Yet Lenin's (1913) "three sources" of Marxism article has the passage "Adam Smith and David Ricardo, by their investigations of the economic system, laid the foundations of the labor theory of value. Marx continued their work; he provided a proof of the theory and developed it consistently. He showed that the value of every commodity is determined by the quantity of socially necessary labor time spent on its production." Grossman pulls a similar operation against Sismondi. In 1924 he is quite appreciative of Sismondi (a French original article appearing in Warsaw), while in 1934 his tune is completely different regarding Sismondi (he must have read Lenin's views on Sismondi in the meantime since now his remarks are indisquishable from Lenin's). In my opinion, Grossman is a tricky fellow and many times one has to pay as much attention to the silences as to the opinions (e.g., anti-Luxemburgism) to get a fuller understanding of what he is up to. Paul ************************************************************************ Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at ********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka Alejandro Ramos <aramos@btl.net> said, on 01/11/02: >>translated in capital and class in two parts in 1977 as marx, >>classical economics and the problem of dynamics. the second half is a >>concentrated attack on the methodology of comparative statics. >Thanks for the reference. I don't know this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST