[OPE-L:4634] Re: reflections on prior publications (fwd)

From: glevy@pratt.edu
Date: Thu Dec 07 2000 - 13:43:20 EST

I think Paul Bl intended the following for the list./Jerry

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "paul bullock" <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.in2home.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:21:12 -0000
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:4602] Re:  reflections on prior publications

Dear Jerry,

Serves you right for trying to get me to speak.  Marx did doubt ,  
clearly not his own achievements. (after all he  had finished with, 
ie dealt
with all the key questions,, as he said,  'all that shit' as he got to 
end of his life and turned to working on Asian/Turkish material )  
orthodox because he convinces me, however much I pore over 
the stuff....  it
coincides with my experience..

As for the methodologies of Grossman and Mattick, no note is 
better than a
short one for the moment, I suppose you mean their 
understanding of Marx's ?

30,000 words is not so short an article.

all the best

Paul BL.
-----Original Message-----
From: glevy@pratt.edu <glevy@pratt.edu>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Date: 04 December 2000 16:46
Subject: [OPE-L:4602] Re: reflections on prior publications

>Re [OPE-L:4595]:
>Thanks for your reply to my questions, Paul (Bullock).
>> The two articles in the BCSE on Productive Labour, to which I 
> >
>> As you know, in the same copy of that journal  David Yaffe and 
>> tackled the
>> question of the Post War Boom and Inflation, in which  the 
>> in particular were tackled in a way which,  I would say,  has 
not been
>> bettered. <snip>
>That's a pretty strong claim for what you admit is a brief article.
>As for the post-war boom, have you read Webber & Rigby _The 
Golden Age
Illusion_? If so, what do you think of it?
>> I remain a 'fundamentalist' or
>> 'orthodox' Marxist,
>I've never understood the attraction of some Marxists to 
fundamentalism and
orthodoxy. It seems to me, btw, to run counter to Marx's own 
slogan that one
should (translating from Latin) "doubt everything".
> >viewing Mattick, Grossman,  Rosdolsky  as key --
>> although I must stress that I had read NONE of them until 
after RC3/4,
>> Grossman only when available in the truncated form in 
English quite
>> recently!  (Could someone please translate the whole book!) I 
judge >
them by
>> what Marx and Engels wrote.
>Do you think that the methodology of Grossmann (see the book 
that you cite)
was the same as that employed by Mattick? Do you agree with 
him on the role
of "successive approximations" in Marxist theory?
>I certainly agree that a non-abridged translation of 
Grossmann's book is
>In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST