[ show plain text ]
Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> said, on 04/05/00 at
03:13 PM: ...
>It seems to me that Marx's theory of value is not influenced by Ricardo
>while his understanding of historical evolution and the role changing
>relations of production play in it derives greatly from Jones--however
>much Marxists other than Grossmann may want to ignore this. Lapides also
>has an excellent discussion of Jones in his book on wage theory.
I would also take the position that Marx had a "break" with Ricardo's
theory, so I don't know what is going on with Sieber. It is possible that
Sieber's position moved after 1871, particularly since Marx in "Notes of
Wagner" refers to the difference between himself and Ricardo as seen
either through *Capital* or through *Sieber*. I don't think Walicki's
book is enough to know what is going on, particularly since Walicki is not
focused on the relation of Marx to Ricardo or Marx to Sieber, but rather
Sieber to the rise of Russian Marxism.
Also, there is a new wrinkle -- some article of Sieber's was received by
Marx in 1877, so that I am not 100 onvinced that the "Notes to Wagner"
citation to "*Sieber's work*" is only to the 1871 book (although that is
what the CW editor says). Shanin, *Late Marx and the Russian Road*, p.
35, fn. 13, says that there is a 1968 Moscow book on Marx's Russian
sources. I'm doubtful any of this list has it or could get it, but you
never know and it could tell us which of Sieber Marx had.
>Moreover, the Korschian principle of historical specificity was developed
>by Marx through study of Jones' cross-historical and -cultural survey of
>rent systems. Relations of production and historical specificity are at
>least as important to Marx's project as the logical principles mentioned
>by Fred. I think we can safely say that no one has understood Marx until
>she has read Richard Jones (I would include Babbage and Ure as well).
Interesting and new (to me) point of view.
> Of course Marx added the class struggle theory as
>the mechanism by which to achieve evolution. So Marx was a social
>evolutionist without a commitment to evolutionism. But Marx's social
>evolutionism was materialist, not idealist as Hegel's.
>The forgotten English political economists Babbage and Jones--hardly
>covered in any of the great histories of economic thought (the latter
>gets a little attention from Wesley Mitchell and Eric Roll)--are the keys
>to unlocking the secret of Marx.
I cited Marx on Jones but didn't realize how important he could be and
need to check out Marx's chapter on Jones in T. of S. V., III.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:43 EDT