[OPE-L:2671] Re: Proof from Marx that Hegel is NOT required to understand him?

From: Gerald Levy (glevy@pratt.edu)
Date: Sat Apr 01 2000 - 22:23:51 EST

[ show plain text ]

RE Paul Z's [OPE-L:2670]:

> My greater interest here is the SUBSTITUTION referred to in "Marginal
> Notes on Wagner" which you skip over, Jerry. Marx's sentence reads: "'Mr.
> Wagner could have familiarized himself with the difference between me and
> Ricardo both from *Capital* and from *Sieber's work* (if he knew
> Russian)'."
> REPEAT: Sieber's 1871 book is a SUBSTITUTE for *Capital*, according to
> Marx. It is in black and white.

I don't think it is black and white at all.

The quote in question asserts that Wagner could have "familiarized himself
with the difference between me (Marx, JL) and Ricardo" by either reading
_Capital_ or Sieber. Thus he is *not* saying that Sieber's book is a
"substitute" for _Capital_ but is rather asserting that it is an
alternative way to understand the difference between Ricardo and Marx.
Considering the fact that the book by Sieber was (evidently) largely on
Ricardo, since Wagner had already read Marx (badly), then he would see how
Ricardo's theory was different from Marx's by learning more about
Ricardian theory from Sieber's book.

Nonetheless, I agree that it would be interesting to read Sieber's book.
I can't read Russian, though.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:42 EDT