From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 07 2007 - 11:36:28 EST
Hi Anders, Marx's critique of Ricardo includes the following: Ricardo did not understand the value form in terms of the mutually assuming/mutually exclusive rleation between relative and equivalent form; he did not understand how capital, not organic chemistry, provided capital with its most important limit; due to faulty abstraction and absence of mediation and lack of dialectics in general Ricardo did not theorize the dynamic consequencs of the immament contradiction, viz. opposed tendencies of regulation by price by law of value and the adjumsnt of prices to allow equalization of profit rate. At the same time Marx accepts Ricardo on following points: 1. A working day of a given length always creates the same amount of value, no matter how much the productiveness of labor may vary. 2. Surplus value increases as the value of labor (power) diminishes. 3. An increase or diminution of surplus value is the result of, and never a cause of, a corresponding change in the magnitude of the value of labor power." From William J Blake and II Rubin on Marx's debt to Ricardo. I don't think the debate is about TSSI per se but about our understanding of the significance of Marx's critique of Ricrado. TSSI, along with Geoffrey Pilling and precious few other Marxists, actually agee with Marx's critique of Ricardo. They think it's worth defending Marx's towering achievement. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 00:00:03 EST