Gerry, Fine was a member of the Communist Party of GB ( now defunct), which, at the time, had long given up any revolutionary claims. But primarily he is an academic and his recent contributions demonstrate this. I think your quotes from him on our work made it abundantly clear that a reply would be undignified as well as a waste of time. In the present situation, I would hope that serious students of Marxism who are concerned with building a revolutionary movement would look at our contemporary writings - an application of the ideas developed over the 1970s to the developing world situation today. David Yaffe At 21:16 15/05/02 -0400, you wrote: >David Y wrote in [7l73]: > > > I regarded their criticism's as fundamentally dishonest >and saw no purpose in responding to them. For myself >I believe Marxism has to be put to the service of a new >revolutionary movement and there is little point in forever >going over the old debates for the sake of it. < > >OK, well I can appreciate that position. The only problem, >though, is that F&H's works are still read and do have some >limited influence. > >Paul B in [7l67] wrote that Harris had described the position of >Paul and yourself -- without even an attempt at justification -- >as "Keynesian" I know you don't want to go over old debates, >but you might be interested in the following gems from Ben >Fine in "Recent Developments in Marxist Economic Theory" >in Gerd Hardach, Dieter Karras and Ben Fine _A Short History >of Socialist Economic Thought (NY, St. Martin's Press, l978, >Ch. 5): > >In the first selection FINE, citing your joint article "Inflation, Crisis >and the Post-War Boom" (_Revolutionary Communist_, 3/4, >November, l975) refers to the both of you as KEYNESIANS *AND* >MONETARISTS: > >"Those who argue the validity of the law of the TRPF by >asserting the dominance of the tendency over the counteracting >tendencies view the current recession in terms of the particular >response by capital to the inevitable working of the law. In >particular, the state is seen as being compelled to expand >expenditure to maintain employment for political stability. >The result of this is a further diminution in the surplus value >available for distribution to capitalists as profits, and inflation >as the state expands its credit to finance its expenditure. >Inevitably, the crisis is only postponed by these manoeuvres. >Again, we can see that *a Keynesian analysis has been >adopted (together with a Keynesian view of the role of the >state to maintain full employment)* with the (false) presumption >that state expenditure will increase employment even though >profitability has been affected. In addition, a *monetarist theory >of inflation* has been utilized with the (false) presumption that >the state predominantly appropriates resources through >over-expansion of the money supply" (p. 76, emphasis with >color added.) > >In the next quote, FINE, citing David's article "The Marxian Theory >of Crisis, Capital and the State" (_Economy and Society_ 2.2, >l973), refers to the E&S article as an "extreme version of" >NEO-RICARDIAN "analysis": > >"The second interpretation of the law [of the TRPF, JL] is the >one that insists on its validity by reworking Marx's analysis of the >rising organic composition of capital but continues by asserting >the dominance of the tendency over the counteracting tendencies >rather than theorizing the contradictory interaction of the two. In >this light, *such a view can be considered to be an extreme >version of the neo-Ricardian analysis* in which distributional >struggle, increases in the rate of exploitation and decreases in >the value of capital are considered *dogmatically* to be of >secondary significance relative to the TRPF. Thus, the simple >interaction of the two tendencies as a sum must lead to an >actual fall in the rate of profit > These two apparently opposing interpretations of the law >["the first Neo-Ricardian interpretation" and David's, JL] >then have much in common and consequently have stunted >rather than developed Marxist theory" (p. 74, emphasis again >added with color.) > >I can see why you wouldn't want to answer these charges. >I wonder: was Fine a member of another (rival) political >party at the time? Perhaps there was an unspoken political >agenda that he was pursuing in feeling the apparent need to >distort your positions. Thus, perhaps, the two of you were >attacked because of your own political associations? I'm >just speculating, of course: I just don't understand what is >going on here. Do you? > >In solidarity, Jerry >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT