[OPE-L:4684] Re: Re: Re: Re: David Yaffe on Ricardo and Marx

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue Dec 12 2000 - 10:42:26 EST

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, paul bullock wrote:

> Dear Paul Z.
> Since this book is not available to my knowledge in English I can't help
> you, nor would it appear that David can. It seems to me that if one can't
> see the difference between Marx and Ricardo from reading them then no one is
> going to be able to help!  


> It is not reasonable to expect Marx to have tried
> to answer or correct every view that didn't make the distinction clear. As
> a politician he would be looking for  support for scientific socialism and
> Seiber was popularising his works...

I have addressed this in my reply to David.  I would hope that mere
politics did not control Marx on such an important issue (or so it seems
from hindsight).

> perhaps you could do us all a favour
> and show why Seiber was  doing what you say, ie what the nature of the
> 'closeness' he argued was between the two? Then you could show why he was
> wrong.

I working on it.  My intervention here was to learn more about the
parameters of the problem, to see if others have struggled and found a

Thanks, Paul Z.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu>
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Date: 12 December 2000 04:54
> Subject: [OPE-L:4680] Re: Re: David Yaffe on Ricardo and Marx
> >Paul B.
> >
> >Thanks for your reaction.  I am sympathetic to your statement of a big
> >break between Ricardo and Marx.  The problem is that Sieber's 1871 book
> >which Marx read (you refer to the later 1885 edition after Marx had died)
> >doesn't suggest such a big break.  Marx praises the book in the 1873
> >German Afterword and in his 1881 notes on Wagner -- even noting the one
> >can understand the difference between Ricardo and himself (Marx) from
> >reading Sieber!  Pretty dramatic, isn't it?  I think we need to explain
> >this dissonance, not ignore it or simply assert that Marx was not a
> >Ricardian and move on.   (I'm a bit surprised David Yaffe has not yet
> >reacted as it was his intro that caused the issue to come to the fore)
> >
> >Paul Z.
> >
> >***********************************************************************
> >Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
> >******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

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