Dear Riccardo, I feel that I have been doing something right in stimulating such a stimulating response from you. One of the research problems which you emphasize at several points in your last post is the theory of non commodity money and the contributions made by Wicksell-Keynes-Schumpeter made in our understanding of some its dimensions, especially the credit mechanism. This is something for you to hash out with your fellow experts such as Alfredo and Claus. The last chapter of Alfredo's new book The Value of Marx: Political Economy for Contemporary Capitalism is an analysis of money and credit. At any rate, I find myself corrected at several points in your post. E.g., > > >You say "it's my job to remain in dialogue as an academician". No. I >think is something which should be done by the all parties involved >in intellectual dialogue. And hence also by me. Where I said that I >waould not listen to Paolo G? I wrote exactly the opposite. You are right. > >Just to take two examples. His works on so-called Globalization: >excellent. His entry on Ricardo in Bottomore's and others Dictionary >on Marxism: very good, and much more sensible than most things >Marxists usually say on this stuff. I am not fully convinced by Paolo's anti globalization empirical findings, but I would add to this list his entry on the reproduction schemes in the Dictionary of Marxist Thought. > >So, first, it is our duty to respect what the others think of >himself/herself. After, we can develop our argulent against what >they are saying, and even againts their self-representationn. Me, >for one, think that willing or not Sraffa WAS a critic of the LTV, >since in his argument values are redundant, and there is no explicit >link value-money. Yes I agree with this. > >may be: may also be that Marx would have been much better if he >fully realised money is not a commodity, though specially, and first >of all created ex nihilo ... > > >no: there's no other brilliant exposition of the link between bank >finance and innovation than Schumpeter's. and, against you, I think >Marxians have to learn from non-Marxians. So yes Marx is incomplete in the theory of money, but do Keynes, Schumpeter and Wicksell point us in the right direction? Again this is for you to hash out with fellow experts such as Claus and Alfredo. > > >you see, I think Marx's real problems are the ones indicated >explicitely by Boehm-Bawerk (why value refers only to labour) because utility obvious does not have the properties which would allow it to be the basis of value and the form through it is expressed? because in making this connection, Marx is then able to develop the categories on the basis of which capitalist dynamics can be explained while Bohm's theory cannot explain much at all (Bohm's theory is ultimately an apologia of non worker income, not a scientific theory of capitalist dynamics). That is, the connection Marx makes between value and labor is *retroactively* validated by the power of the explanatory theory which is based on said connection (Postone makes this argument; so did Blake). well, there is no reason to rehash the criticisms of Bohm by Hilferding, Boudin, Bukharin, Blake, Meek, Dobb, etc. >and the other indicated implicitely by Wicksell-Schumpeter-Keynes >1930, money as finance must be thought as completely divorced from >commodities in actual capitalism, ever. not the transformation >problem, which does not exist. but which may be should be framed >differently if one thoroughly thinks of how to answer Boehm-Bawerk, >and the WSK line. I doubt "fundamentalists" ever will get the >problems. Yes, I shall re read your papers on the monetary circuit. All the best, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT