Stimulating question, Jerry. I would have to say Sraffa (surprise!), mainly for showing that the classical P.E. tradition running through Ricardo to Marx is robust: i.e. its fundamental insights regarding value and distribution hold up when the problematic labor value analysis is discarded. He also pointed the way to a critique of the marginalist theory that displaced classical and Marxian P.E. The contribution was both positive and critical: he gave us a reason to stick with classical P.E. (the theory holds up) and a reason to ditch neoclassical theory (it DOESN'T hold up). I would also include Pierangelo Gargnani, who carried forward the critique implicit in Production of Commodities, and who has cast important light on what Marx and the classicals were getting at. I find it difficult to think of many other post-Marx figures whose contributions have been of comparable importance -- that is, comparable to the achievements of Curie, Crick, Rutherford et al. in physics and chemistry. Baran and Sweezy (separately and together) might qualify for their work on monopoly capital; and Kalecki of course shouldn't be ignored. >===== Original Message From "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> ===== >In [6501] Paul Z quoted from Engels 'Preface' to Volume 2 and asked: > >> Did Lavosier 'build' on phlogistic chemistry? I don't think so. > >Agreed, but all would agree that chemistry advanced scientifically >after Lavoisier and that subsequent advances in chemistry built upon >the pioneering work of Lavoisier and others. Some of those who >advanced the fields of chemistry and what would become physics >included Berthollet, Dalton, Gay-Lussac, Avogadro, Davy, >Berzelius, Mendelejeff, Bunsen, Raleigh, Ramsey, Arrhenius, >Bequerel, M&P Curie, Rutherford, Thomson, Wilson, Einstein, >Fischer, WA & WL Bragg, H Moseley (any relation?), Wohler, >Fermi, Pauling, Sanger, Seaborg, Crick and many others. Isn't >this a characteristic of *any* science -- that it continually advances >and builds upon what has already been learned and in some cases >rejects false understandings (as did Lavosier)? > >All would agree *in principle* that our scientific understanding of >capitalism was not buried with Marx, > >BUT > >* WHO ADVANCED OUR UNDERSTANDING OF > CAPITALISM SINCE MARX? > >* and what were their contributions to that understanding that > weren't already IN Marx's writings? > >* Also: what contributions to our understanding of that > subject matter concerned something *other than* attempting > to develop our understanding of how capitalism has > changed and developed since Marx's time? > >* Also: is there *any* major part of Marx's theory that the > development of subsequent thought shows needs to be > modified or rejected? > >If Marxism is a science then all of these questions should >be able to be answered -- even if our answers are different. > >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EST