[OPE-L:4274] Re: Steve on the worthlessness of labor at the source of surplus value

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 22:36:48 EDT

Steve Keen <s.keen@uws.edu.au> said, on 10/25/00:

>There we differ Paul. I believe that I am working more fully within
>Marx's framework than anyone who starts from the premise that labor is
>the only source of value. Marx himself was not willing to do this, as I
>show in my papers.
>I find it sad that Marx's alleged followers aren't as willing as Marx
>himself was to deeply examine the logic of those who inspired him.


"Marx's alleged followers".  That's an interesting formulation, taken from
criminal legal practice.  

Just for my curiosity, have you struggled with Althusser who deals with
Marx's relation to Hegel?  Does such a person as Althusser, when moving
out of the trial arena, become a simple Marxist (innocent) or a simple
non-Marxist (guilty).


Alejandro Ramos <aramos@btl.net> said, on 10/24/00:

>I take advantage of this post to ask something I have had in my head for
>some time. I remember that, in that article, you review Lenin's book on
>Sismondi. At that point, Lenin position regarding the "markets" issue was
>practically the same as Tugan. Lenin's book on S. was from 1897.

>Wasn't possible that, at that point, Lenin had already read the 1st
>edition of Tugan's book (1894)? Didn't he cite it? Later on, you say that
>in a text of 1899, it's clear that Lenin had read Tugan. Why? Why not
>before this, in 1897?


Yes, Lenin had read Tugan's 1894 book in 1897 because it is cited a few
times, the most important being in the section VII on 'Crises' in his
Sismondi book.  There he defends Tugan against Ephrucy.  When Lenin issued
in 1908 a new edition of his 1897 work on Sismondi, he added footnoted
criticisms of Tugan, but in the 1897 there are none.

Rosdolsky, as you probably know, makes a case for a close connection
between Tugan and Lenin theoretically (Lenin comes "uncomfortably close to
Bulgakov's and Tugan's 'disproportionality theory' of crises", p. 479).

You are correct about my wording.  I do refer to Lenin reading Tugan in
1899.  1899 is the year of Lenin's first overall assessment of Tugan's
book, and probably partly conditioned by his reading closely Tugan
empirical work for the *Dev. of Cap. in Russia*.   Perhaps Lenin was more
influenced by Tugan in 1897 than I had thought.  But I cannot defend that
yet. Thanks for pointing to this issue.

Paul Z.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST