There has been a lot of misunderstandings between Mike L. and myself. In
[OPE-L 460] Mike L. says:
>I don't know why Riccardo dismisses this as written in a hurry--- the
>connections established are at the core of what is presented in CAPITAL.
>(It's true, he said he was "working like mad all night" at one point, but
>haven't we all!)
I'm not underrating the Grundrisse. I am - so to speak - a 'Capital vol.
I' guy who thinks that we cannot understand nothing in the late Marx
without the filter of the Grundrisse. I was only saying that Marx wrote
that book in a hurry. It is a fact: nothing more, nothing less. He
expected, if I remember well, social upheavals coming because of the
crisis. And then wanted to be 'ready'. You confirm the hurry. Why do you
'deduce' in me a theoretical lack of respect from a simple fact you also
know, and confirm? I have the *highest* esteem of the 1857-58 Manuscripts.
>to elevate Vol IV to the position of the start of Marx's
>order of enquiry is incorrect; and, it creates the presumption that we
>should go thou and do likewise. I believe that, while that may correspond
>to
>the current project of some members of this list in their outside activity,
>for us to extend Marx we have to be very clear on precisely what Marx did,
>on his methodology. Rather than picking modern economists to critique and
>eclectically adding to Marx, we need to develop a way to know--- at what
>point do we, can we, introduce these elements into the argument in an
>organic manner.
The true order, starting from the 1861-63 Manuscript, in fact was I, IV,
III, I, III. I agree that Marx's readings in the TSV are theoretically
informed from what he already knew (but he made discoveries in the writing
process! this explains the going back and forward). There is no
disagreement on this. Before the Grundrisse there were the cahiers Marx
accumulated since 1844, and the work at the British Museum in the early
'50s. I fully AGREE that this was only the (necessary!) point of departure
for Marx. And that only *after* having built his essential insights in the
Grundrisse, Marx was able to go back to interrogate the earlier texts of
the other economists. Thus, we are not so distant, after all.
BTW, you are not fair, if you refer to me, in saying that I want to
'eclectically add' modern economists to Marx.
The real disagreement between us may be is linked to the following
question: is there a political economy after Marx? And *if* the reply is
yes, could the Marxian political economy of today may be constructed
without 'criticizing' it - in the Marxian sense, i. e. both looking at
what contemporary political economy uncovers, and at its shortcomings (I
fully accept Duncan's strictures on 'critique' in OPE-L 422)? But do we
really disagree? You write: ' we need to develop a way to know--- at what
point do we, can we, introduce these elements into the argument in an
organic manner.' I agree. Simply, I do not exclude a priori that, if the
object of the critique of the political economy changes, also the method
*may be* must change. It is something which must be checked. Put in
another way, the Marxian method is cut off from the content of the
critique of the political economy? Is it possible that the object of the
critique changes, and that the method stays there unscathed? This is a
real question, I've not the answer (now) - but, again, I'm sympathetic
with what Duncan's says of the connection between method and content in
the critique of political economy in his OPE-L 422.
That said, I agree that it is useful to start from Marx's method and
texts. Before to change something, it is better to know that thing in the
best way: the change could be for the worse.
I also agree with you that those who think that a rereading of Marx cannot
be pursued without considering heterodox and neoclassical 'bourgeois'
thought appears to be in the list a minority. So, far from me the idea to
ask the other participants to start in a hurry 'extending' Marx looking at
post-Ricardo non-Marxian developments.
Unfortunately, as Marx realized after the '50s, we have plenty of time for
discussions.
in solidarity
riccardo
PS: regarding your most recent post on Alan and changes in capitalism
after Marx, Jerry, I wish only to submit the following hypothesis. If Alan
is right, than it is *enough* to limit the political economy to criticize
to the theoretical developments in Ricardo - the intelligent move Alan made
proposing Friedman as the political economists of our time, only to go
back to Ricardo ... For those who think there are post-Ricardo political
economists - including contemporary political economists, even within the
neoclassical camp - then there must have been changes in capitalism.
==================================================================
Riccardo Bellofiore e-mail: bellofio@cisi.unito.it
Department of Economics Tel: (39) -35- 277505 (direct)
University of Bergamo (39) -35- 277501 (dept.)
Piazza Rosate, 2 (39) -11- 5819619 (home)
I-24129 Bergamo Fax: (39) -35- 249975
Italy
==================================================================
On Thu, 9 Nov 1995, Michael A. Lebowitz wrote:
> In message Sat, 4 Nov 1995 04:12:20 -0800,
> Riccardo Bellofiore <bellofio@cisi.unito.it> writes:
>
> > It was asked to Mr K. what he was doing. He replied: I'm working hard
> > preparing my next error.
> >
> > Bertolt Brecht
> >
> >
>
> Riccardo gives me an opportunity to offer my favourite Brecht, which seems
> especially appropriate in the light of one of the things we tried to
> explore earlier:
>
> "I've noticed, said Herr K, that a lot of people are put off from our
> teaching because we know the answer to everything. Couldn't we in the
> interests of propaganda draw up a list of questions which appear to us
> completely unresolved?"
> BB
>
> > Comrades, if we look at Marx's order of enquiry, as Alan
> > reconstructed it, it started with TSV. Then, Marx studied the politicla
> > economy of his time *before* starting to write (another) version of what
> > will become in due course Capital, vol. I. I t hink Michael L. is right,
> > we must take into account the Grundrisse, but that does not change much:
> > it was written in a great hurry *after* years of studying Smith and
> > Ricardo, Malthus and Sismondi, Tooke and Fullarton.
>
> I believe that this argument greatly understates the significance
> of the Grundrisse in general and with respect to Marx's enquiry and,
> further, that it has a significant effect upon our understanding of Marx's
> methodolody and our own order of enquiry. It is, of course, true that Marx
> spent many years studying Smith, et al before writing the Grundrisse. It is
> also true that in the years preceding the Grundrisse he was intensely
> involved in concrete analysis of monetary developments, trade patterns,
> government budgets, labour struggles and cyclical movements and wrote about
> these in his Tribune articles. All of this, however, was merely the first
> step in his enquiry, its "point of departure". But what followed?
> Consider Marx's statement in the Postface to the Second Edition (Vintage,
> 102). "Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of
> inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse
> its different forms of development and to track down their inner
> connection." I suggest that this is *precisely* what occurs in the
> Grundrisse--- in particular, the tracking down of the inner connection. We
> watch this unfold before our very eyes--- Marx saying, at what point do I
> bring this in, not yet, not yet, we must establish the inner connection. I
> don't know why Riccardo dismisses this as written in a hurry--- the
> connections established are at the core of what is presented in CAPITAL.
> (It's true, he said he was "working like mad all night" at one point, but
> haven't we all!)
> This is why I challenged in 377 Alan's argument that the method of
> enquiry begins with Vol. IV (ie., TSV). Rather, it was only *after* Marx had
> developed those absolutely essential insights I noted in the Grundrisse that
> he was able to proceed to go back to interrogate those earlier texts on the
> basis of this new understanding, an activity in the course of which he was
> able to develop further his understanding of capitalism as an organic
> system. Ie., Marx's critique of the "economic categories", his discovery of
> that hidden inner, precedes his ability to offer a critique and history of
> political economy.
> In this respect, to elevate Vol IV to the position of the start of Marx's
> order of enquiry is incorrect; and, it creates the presumption that we
> should go thou and do likewise. I believe that, while that may correspond to
> the current project of some members of this list in their outside activity,
> for us to extend Marx we have to be very clear on precisely what Marx did,
> on his methodology. Rather than picking modern economists to critique and
> eclectically adding to Marx, we need to develop a way to know--- at what
> point do we, can we, introduce these elements into the argument in an
> organic manner.
> in solidarity,
> mike
> ---------------------------
> Michael A. Lebowitz
> Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
> Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
> Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
> Home: (604) 255-0382
> Lasqueti Island: (604) 333-8810
> e-mail: mlebowit@sfu.ca
>