[OPE-L:4031] Re: m in Marxs theory [Actually now about Grossman]

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 10:21:22 EDT

Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> said, on 10/09/00:

>In 4009, Ajit wrote:

>>  My sense is that
>>Marx thought that properties derived from the reproduction schemas will not be
>>affected even if the exchange ratios where different from the value ratios,

>Marx may have been wrong.  The reproduction schema may not be immune  to
>Rosa Luxemburg's criticism unless we allow for the possibility of 
>exchange at prod prices, instead of values. In my reply to Paul Z, I 
>noted that Grossmann and Mattick Sr had made this point and that both 
>thought that Bauer's reply  which continued to assume exchange at  value
>was not persuasive.

I do not think that the reproduction schema can be reinvigorated by
allowing for the possibility of exchange at production prices.  However,
Grossman (his own spelling of his name when he wrote in English or French
or Polish (see Rick Kuhn, *RPE*, Volume 18 -- constantly spelling his name
in the German reinforces, in my opinion, a very common belief that Henryk
Grossman was of German origin) and Mattick, Sr. seem to be making a good
point re value and production prices.

On Bauer, Grossman may have thought that there were a lot of limitations
to his work, but he surely put this Austro-Marxist at a higher plane of
analysis than the revolutionary Marxist of Polish origin Rosa Luxemburg. 
(Rakesh, is this enough to provoke from you a response? -- just kidding!)

Paul Z.

******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

P.S. to Tsoulfidis Lefteris:  I think other responses on OPE posed in
another way that question I asked you about the transformation problem and
don't think a reply from me is necessary.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST