Fred wrote in [7279]: > 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. Then, what about David Y? In [7266] you wrote that David and you essentially agree on the response to the criticism of logical contradiction. Didn't David, from your perspective, give an adequate response in his May l976 article "Value and Price in Marx's Capital" (_Revolutionary Communist, #l, 2nd edition: available online now at http://www.rcgfifi.easynet.co.uk/marxism/articles ) ? > 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. There was nothing in von Bortkiewicz's critique that wasn't said first, stronger and in more detail by Bohm-Bawerk. Let us recall that Bohm-Bawerk was and remains better known and, in addition to publishing his article in l896 -- nine years before von Botkiewicz's shorter article was published, his article was published in English in l898 whereas von Bortkiewicz's l907 article only appeared in English in l949 (52 years later) with Sweezy's translation. > 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. Bukharin's book is a critique of marginalism rather than being focused on the TP. This is, in a sense, a stronger response since it purports not merely to reply to the criticisms of Marx-critics but to critique their school of thought. > 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. Note the tense of your reply. You wrote above that "more work needs to be done" and that a "satisfactory response" has "not been given, or at least has not yet been fully developed". Yet, I thought you claimed that you _had_ (past tense) given a response to the charge of internal inconsistency in Marx. What do you now recognize is not entirely satisfactory about _your_ response and what has not been fully developed? Wouldn't it then be fair to say, *from your perspective*, that you feel that the charges of internal inconsistency in Marx have *still* not been satisfactorily developed? That sounds like a "step backwards" to me. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT