Paul Z writes: >> >>Anyway, Rosdolsky already dealt with the 'swindles' issue a long time ago >>(1968, pp. 497-99) and not only agrees with Luxemburg, his rebuttal is >>complementary to and perhaps even clearer than Luxemburg's own. yes but rosdolsky does not understand grossmann's and mattick's point (see the latter's essay on luxemburg in anti bolshevik communism). RR writes that "'the transfer of capital in material form' cannot us over the difficulties raised by RL. And of equally little help is the transfer of capital in money form, which underlines bauer's method--regardless of how much it corresponds to everyday practice of capitalists --since this transfer has been practiced since time immemorial without any regard to the changes caused by technical progress."p. 499 So even if one doesn't accept Howard and King's argument that the tranfer of capital can be invoked deus ex machina to ensure equilibrium growth, we don't necessarily need capital movement for the formation of prices of production that eliminate the interdepartmental 'imbalances' that result from exchange at value, no? Again Grossmann thinks that in terms of the long term prognosis of the capitalist mode of production, one can't allow one's attention to be absorbed by interdepartmental relations that over time can be balanced one way or another (transfer of capital in material or money form, value-price deviations); the greatest contradictions are in the process of production itself which must thus be abstracted from the concrete totality. Marx thus reversed the analytical priorities of the bourgeois school of exchange economics. Grossmann and Mattick are in the tradition of Marx; Bauer, Luxemburg and Rosdolsky are not. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST