zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu
Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:05:25
Mike, I have just forwarded to you the prior exchange between myself and
Ajit. I take it you have Lapides' on Ajit. I cannot help but notice the
following in your commentary on Lapides:
On 10/18/99 at 12:59 PM, "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@sfu.ca> said: >
>Since what I find most disturbing, however, is the appearance of scholarly
> dishonesty (not a suggestion I make lightly),
...
>Rather, he simply
>dismisses people who have taken that contrary position and then returns
>to telling his own story of the evolution of Marx's plan for Capital.
...
> Lapides' suppression of this passage is particularly surprising.
...
> I think that to situate Lapides'
>scholarly integrity properly, it is useful to see what in my earlier
>critique he did not respond to either in S&S or in this book.
...
> Having traced almost all of the evidence above--- including the passage
>from the 1861-63 Mss cited above which Lapides conveniently forgot (!),
...
> I think that Lapides' failure to respond and, indeed, his attempt to
>bury the fact that these questions were even directed to him says quite a
>bit about his integrity as a scholar. It is unfortunate because the
>potential of the book is squandered by his performance on this question.
...
>Unlike members of this list, on this
>question, Lapides has nothing to offer.
Mike, I don't know the personal issues here but just reading thru what you
write it seems to me you are over-doing whatever case you have. Is it not
uncommon to miss certain passages (if Lapides did) from a writer of how
many CW volumes? And I'm not exactly sure that Lapides has to answer your
S&S article? Of course, as things turn out he may reply with some much
more pointed remarks, I'm just a little disturbed by the tone of what you
are starting out here.
Actually the substance of the dispute between the two of you can be quite
interesting, at least for me: the paper I just posted is largely
supportive of Luxemburg (on another issue) who, I think, would be close to
your position on wages. On the other hand, I just noticed Lenin in his
Collected Works, Vol. 41, a lecture plan which includes
"4.'Normal' conditions for the consumption of the commodity
'labor-power' are determined by the worker's [sic] struggle against the
capitalist" (p.232).
which I take to be a good part of Lapides' position. My Althusserian
sympathies would take me in this direction. So, I myself have something
to work through.
Oh well, I guess we are in for a dispute. Paul
P.S. I'm copying Lapides since I believe he has a right to be up to date
on this.
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY web site
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:31 EST