From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2008 - 11:36:15 EDT
Hi Martin: I agree with you. Ricardo's theory, as former OPE-L member Duncan Foley once said here, is more dialectical than is commonly supposed. The problem here hence might not be with Ricardo but with the 'translation' of Ricardo, by later-day Ricardians and surplus approach theorists, into the formal logic of linear algebra. Obviously something was lost in the 'translation'! When Marx's theory is 'translated' into linear algebra, I think - similarly - a lot lot 'information', nuance, and complexity is lost. In solidarity, Jerry > > A note. Reading original texts in their context is always a tricky thing and topics very often get obscured, especially in a lot of the more literary interpretations of political economy. However, the way I have read Ricardo there is nothing which supports a rigid interpretation of the subsistence theory of wages. Ricardo himself noted:> "Perhaps this is expressed too strongly, as more is generally allotted to the labourer under the name of wages, than the absolutely necessary expenses of production. In that case a part of the net revenue of the country is received by the labourer, and may be saved or expended by him; or it may enable him to contribute to the defence of the country."> D. Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. P. Sraffa, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1951, p. 348n. > In Ricardo there is no such thing as any "iron law" for anything, such assumptions would be counter to his whole methodology. I have never read any statement by Ricardo which was not immediately qualified, just as it should be in *good* social science. _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 00:00:09 EDT