I understood - but maybe I'm wrong - that while I was thinking that Marx
on abstract labor and value was not *completely* consistent - or, at
least, that there are problems in his argument - you, Andrew, thought that
on abstract labor and value the late Marx (from 1867 onwards) was
consistent, or could be shown to be consistent in his own terms. So, I
thought I could lump you with Mino when he says that he is satisfied with
Marx's original, 'crystal clear', formulations. Thus, my agreement on your
point that inconsistencies must be demonstrated went along with the
recognition that maybe there are differences on content among us. BTW, I
tried in my last posts to show both that inconsistencies in Marx are hard
to find and that anyhow his argument is not completely convincing: that
is, the inconsistencies in Marx are not the ones on which there is
generally an attack on Marx. IMO, of course.
I make to you my apologies if I misrepresented you. And of course, I
would be happy if I overstated the distance among us.
riccardo
==================================================================
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 Wed, 29 Nov 1995 akliman@acl.nyit.edu wrote:
> Andrew here. In ope-l 565, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote
>
> "[regarding Tony Smith's view that the discussion on abstract labor has
> proceeeded on the assumption that Marx held one consistent view, and our job
> is just to find out what it was] I said exactly the opposite ... and I was
> attacked for that, e.g. by Andrew K."
>
> First, I do not think a disagreement is necessarily an "attack." Second, I
> did *not even disagree* with Ricardo's view. I was making general methodo-
> logical points about interpretation, directed to no one individual or their
> positions in particular. In fact, I do think Marx's views underwent change
> and development and I would certainly *not* assert without demonstration
> that *everything* in _Capital_ is completely consistent--and it would be
> practically impossible to demonstrate that. Why does Riccardo think that
> he was under attack? I'm racking my brains on this.
>
> The only thing I can think of is that I said allegations of inconsistency in
> Marx's work must be demonstrated, not merely asserted. But Riccardo wrote
> a post in response in which he *agreed* with this point. So I'm at a loss.
>
> Ciao--Andrew
>