Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@stanford.edu> said, on 01/12/02:
>everyting you list was written before 1900, and aren' these mostly
>theoretical works on the possibility of capitalism at all within Russia,
>not theories of the long term tendency of an advanced or late capitalism.
>Which is what grossmann's object of theoretical
>investigation was.
...
>[end of posting] Lenin himself wrote nothing to criticize.
They are theoretical works (except when dealing with empirical questions),
many were re-published in a second edition in 1908, and, in 1913, Lenin
refers back positively to his article on Tugan. They all are part of
Lenin's economic thought.
If Grossman is to be excused from considering Lenin's economics, I'd like
to have more convincing reasons than Lenin "wrote nothing" of relevance, or
Grossman "held his tongue for reasons of party discipline" (he had no
party).
>>"Grossmann and Mattick are in the tradition of Marx; Bauer, Luxemburg and
>>Rosdolsky are not" ...
>I am speaking here in terms of their theories of accumulation and crisis
>which are not rooted in the production of surplus value.
Seems to be Mattick's charge against Luxemburg ("her own solution of the
problem comprises, in essence, no more than a misunderstanding of the
relation between money and capital and a misreading of the Marxian text"),
which in turn is based on Bukharin's distortion that for Luxemburg
accumulation of capital is accumulation of money capital. I reply in my
published article.
Isn't this a charge that Luxemburg is no Marxist? For how could a Marxist
do otherwise than have accumulation "rooted in the production of surplus
value", the key to Marx's thought? It would implicate her teaching
political economy in the party school in Berlin. It would implicate
Mehring for stupidity in his *Karl Marx* ("in order to give the reader a
clear and adequate picture of the second and third volumes of Marx's
Capital I appealed to my friend Rosa Luxemburg for assistance", p. xvii).
Etc. Maybe this is the intention in formulating criticism of her in such
stark terms ('don't rely on her economics, ergo, don't rely on her
politics').
Still, my topic in [OPE-L:6284] was not Luxemburg, but rather 1941 Grossman
on Marx and the Classicals, and absent any discussion of Lenin's contrary
position.
Paul
P.S. Rakesh, did you ever get Bernice Shoul's 1947 Radcliffe dissertation
and, if so, what's her "shocking" contribution? (Grossman "proceeded on the
basis of a provisional acceptance of Say's Law for the purposes of
discovering contradictions independent of demand. this aspect of grossman
was best understood by bernice shoul who anticipates in shocking detail
much of what raya dunayevskaya would later say on the matter as well")
Rakesh, your text would be more readable with caps, as appropriate.
************************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST