From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:17:02 EST
Dear Paul thanks for these observations and refs. At 3:14 pm -0500 17/3/04, Paul Zarembka wrote: >Chris, > >Thanks for your review of White's work and I have obtained James White's >reply; it is attached. Did both appear in *Studies in Marxism*? > Yes. No. 8, 2001, >I share White's understanding of what Luxemburg was trying to accomplish, >against your dismissal of her work on accumulation of capital. In fact, >I'll up the stakes. > >Marx started *Capital* with "Commodities" and goes forward as we all well >know, never really getting to history until the end of *Volume 1*. Yet, >around the time that the first edition of *Capital* was published, he >became more and more deeply drawn into the historical question and the >question of the penetration (or lack thereof) of capitalism into >pre-capitalist society. As White says, > > "It emerged [from White's investigations] that what Marx was interested >in at that time was the action of capital on non-capitalist societies, >traditional agrarian communities. He began this line of inquiry not with >Russia, but with his native Germany, using mainly the works of Maurer. But >the country where the peasant agrarian commune was most in evidence was >Russia, and it was to that country that he naturally turned his >attention." > >Compare Luxemburg's *Introduction to Political Economy*. She doesn't get >to "Commodity Production" until her six chapter! Her long third chapter >is "Elements of Economic History: Primitive Communism" and used some of >the exact same source materials as Marx was reading. (Marx, Luxemburg and >White all read Russian. Incidentally, half of Luxemburg's third chapter >is now translated into English in *The Rosa Luxemburg Reader*, edited by >Peter Hudis and Kevin B. Anderson, Monthly Review, 2004, pp. 71-110.) >Luxemburg goes on to feudalism and the guilds. > >In other words, Luxemburg's project became in fact what White says Marx >was moving toward in his late years! Pretty amazing, no? I think >Luxemburg came to this on her own, although apparently she did have access >to some of Marx's unpublished materials. > >Where I might depart from White is that I think the problem with >accumulation of capital as the extension of capitalism is already a >problem in *Volume 1* of *Capital*, while White thinks it arises from the >interface of *Volume 1* with *Volume 2*. My argument appears in >"Accumulation of Capital, Its Definition, A Century after Lenin and >Luxemburg", *R.P.E.*, Vol. 18, pp. 183-241, and is also mentioned in my >comment on Sayer's review of White. > >Another comment. In my view, you over-estimate the cogency of Lenin's >economics. For my own evaluation, see my article last year in *Science >and Society*, "Lenin, Economist of Production: A Ricardian Step >Backwards". The more carefully I read Lenin's economics, the less >'marxist' it became and I wouldn't use it as a standard anymore. > >In any case, I prefer your review of White's *Karl Marx and the Origins of >Dialectical Materialism* because you clearly respect the work, in spite of >disagreements. I hadn't known of it before and am glad that White is >receiving increasing attention. > >Paul > >P.S. I notice some typos in White: > >a. "Manuscript I of the second draft written in 1865": actually refers to >Manuscript I of Volume 2. > >b. The first edition of Capital was 1867, not 1868. > We caught both those mistakes in production Yours Chris 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 20 2004 - 00:00:01 EST