From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2006 - 08:05:25 EST
> Insofar as Marx demonstrated that the rate of profit would tend to > decline while the rate of surplus value is constant, this is definitely a > critique of Ricardo's 'falling rate of profit' (and indeed all those like > Mill who followed him in this). And Marx is explicit--- noting that R > ends up retreating to organic chemistry. Mike L, There's no doubt about that, but that's not what we're talking about. It's clear that he intended "the Law" to be a critique of Ricardian theory and, as Dogan pointed out, as a component part of his critique of all of classical political economy. The issue which we have been discussing is to what extent "the Law" can be seen as an implicit critique of Smithian invisible hand doctrine. Dogan is also looking into what M had to say explicitly about Smith's belief in the invisible hand. In solidarity, Jerry Dogan wrote: > I have been reading in Capital and Grundrisse on this. I agree with you on this and there > is textual edidence. But I think Marx intends to develop his theory of the tendency for > the general rate of profit to decline (LTGRPD) to criticise the whole of political economy > - even of his days'. JL wrote: I'm sure you're right about this. But, I don't recall discussion in the history of thought and/or Marxian literature on how the LTGRPD could be thought of, *in part*, as an implicit critique of the Smithian invisible hand doctrine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST