On Tue, 28 May 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: > > However, critics argue that this theory is contradicted by the tendency of > > profit rates to equalize across industries. That is why I think a strong > > response to this criticism is necessary and worthwhile. > > Hilferding and Bukharin didn't give "strong responses"? > > In solidarity, Jerry Jerry, No, I don't think Hilferding and Bukharin gave adequate responses to this critique. If I did, I wouldn't be working on this issue. First of all, Hilferding responded to Bohm-Bawerk's critique of Marx, but not to Bortkeiwitz's critique. Bohm-Bawerk's critique of the contradiction between Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 and his theory of prices of production in Volume 3 is weak, and so is Hilferding's reply. Bohm-Bawerk's main critique is of Marx's derivation in Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of labor as the common property of commodities that determines their exchange-values. Hilferding's response to this more important critique is also weak and inadequate. I don't know what Bukharin had to say about critiques of Marx's theory of prices of production. Jerry, could you please tell us? I doubt if it was an adequate answer. I imagine that, at best, it was similar to Hilferding's answer. I doubt if Bukharin responded at all to Bortkeiwitz's critique. That is why I think more work needs to be done on this issue. Because a satisfactory response to this critique of Marx' s theory has not yet been given, or at least has not yet been fully developed. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT