From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Fri Jul 28 2006 - 23:54:46 EDT
> >Marx's purpose in discussing the simple and enlarged reproduction of >society's total capital is, I think, really considerably different from >Quesnay's discussion. Yes. Rick Kuhn argues, following HG, that Marx reworks Quesnay with Sismondi's insights into the basic structure of capitalism; the result is an analysis of the reproduction of total capital with a view to the measurement of surplus value independent of its forms. We can see how the different forms of capital fit into this reproduction process and the determinants of its growth (including of course the turnover speed). Before this can be done there can be no real theory of capitalist dynamics. Hence, the Grossman/Tribe argument that the character of Marx's theory changes considerably after the assimilation of Quesnay as modified by Sismondi. For this reason, Marx's Capital is not a simple continuation or expansion of the Grundrisse. This was the thesis I was asking Chris about. I think Chris rejects it. >I think also that Marx's analysis of this reproduction process is very >incomplete, and there is much more that needs to be said about it. Sure. I think everyone is agreed on that. Marx does not assimilate the theory of credit, for example. >This >would shed more light on the equilibrium discussion we had about the nature >of markets. > >Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT