[OPE-L:6284] Re: Re: Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 21:54:11 EST

The article is a 1941 manuscript (*Capital and Class* doesn't tell you
where it comes from), first published in 1969 in German original.

The very first sentence is the type I find annoying in Grossman:

"The dominant view of Marx is to regard him as a student of and successor
to the Classical economists; as an economist who 'completed' that work". 

He then footnotes a pretty long list of culprits of whom LENIN IS NOT
LISTED.  Yet Lenin's (1913) "three sources" of Marxism article has the

"Adam Smith and David Ricardo, by their investigations of the economic
system, laid the foundations of the labor theory of value.  Marx continued
their work; he provided a proof of the theory and developed it
consistently.  He showed that the value of every commodity is determined by
the quantity of socially necessary labor time spent on its production."

Grossman pulls a similar operation against Sismondi.  In 1924 he is quite
appreciative of Sismondi (a French original article appearing in Warsaw),
while in 1934 his tune is completely different regarding Sismondi (he must
have read Lenin's views on Sismondi in the meantime since now his remarks
are indisquishable from Lenin's).

In my opinion, Grossman is a tricky fellow and many times one has to pay as
much attention to the silences as to the opinions (e.g., anti-Luxemburgism)
to get a fuller understanding of what he is up to. 


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

Alejandro Ramos <aramos@btl.net> said, on 01/11/02:

>>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.

>Thanks for the reference. I don't know this.

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