From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Nov 13 2005 - 11:27:00 EST
[One recent comic > moment happened when the Authority claimed that Michael H hadn't > seriously considered Grossmann: evidently, the Authority was > unaware that Michael had published several pieces which referred to > Grossmann.] I said that Michael H had not presented on this list a careful critique for why Marx had provided the rudiments of what he had wanted to say on the world market. This is a matter of fact. Certainly there has be no quotation of major parts of HG's argument and systematic refutation of him on this question. Michael Lebowitz of course did offer a systematic refutation of HG's idea that Marx had provided the rudiments for his book on wage labor. That I found Lapides more convincing does not mean Lebowitz did not make a systematic argument. But this is not the case with HG's case for Marx's essential completion of the book on the world market. And whether Michael H has "referred" to Grossmann elsewhere is irrelevant. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 00:00:01 EST