I read marx on Wagner, but not Wagner's original--I couldn't locate it in Australia--and BB in Sweezy's volume and in Capital and Interest. The curious thing is that their criticisms of Marx are almost identical, BB's occurs well after Wagner's, and yet BB makes no acknowledgement of Wagner. However he did attribute Knies, as you observe. It wasn't a major issue compared to the thrust of my thesis, but it is a curious circumstance. It is probably worth investigating further as an HET topic: did BB actually not read Wagner, or was there a snub involved, etc.? Cheers, Steve At 21:14 25/10/00 -0600, you wrote: >Re Steve's 4271: > >>I also directly criticise Bohm Bawerk for failing to understand Marx in my >>papers--in fact I argue that this conservative critic (and his predecessor >>Wagner) actually established the manner in which most subsequent followers >>of Marx misinterpreted the master. > >Did you read Wagner? What is the connection between Wagner and Bohm, in >general, and regarding their criticism of Marx's work? I have seen that >there is a connection between Bohm and Knies. In fact, Bohms work was >published in a book to "pay tribute" (is this English??) to Knies. > >Alejandro R. > > Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance University of Western Sydney Macarthur Building 11 Room 30, Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560 Australia s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST