[OPE-L:6277] Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 16:02:43 EST

just answers that require no thought.

>2. "I am at a loss why the  TSS'ers do not recognize that in his 1941
>dynamics book to which Mattick Sr wrote an introduction, Grossmann
>demonstrated how at odds Marx was at equilibrium assumptions of bourgeois

translated in capital and class in two parts in 1977 as marx, 
classical economics and the problem of dynamics. the second half is a 
concentrated attack on the methodology of comparative statics.

>3. "I noticed however that you did not mention that your interpretation
>requires that Marx's mention of double divergence in Capital 3 and TSV be
>excised in effect from the text."
>I don't know Fred and Laibman's articles in S&S, but I've given an
>interpretation of what you call the "double divergence" in my article in
>IJPE. It doesn't require to "excise" texts. I don't believe, btw, that Fred
>advises to make such a thing...

in previous email exchange with allin, fred has agreed that in order 
for his interpretation to hold marx had to have made a mistake in 
writing that there are two reasons why the value of a commodity and 
its price of production diverge.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST