[OPE-L:6305] Re: Re: Re: Re: grossman (response to paul z) [or, the "silences" of Grossman and Lenin]

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 13 2002 - 22:56:14 EST

>Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@stanford.edu> said, on 01/12/02:
>>Mattick Sr's critique [of Luxemburg] is thus quite different in 
>>emphasis than Bukharin's.
>I disagree.

Paul, I think you are mistaking Mattick's reporting of Bukharin's 
critique for Mattick's own critique of Luxemburg. And about his own 
positive contribution I don't think you have said anything.

>Yet, Marx's schemes and Luxemburg's discussion of them do not depend upon
>rising c/v.

well that's one of the advantages that HG attributed to Bauer's scheme.

>>But her theory of accumulation, crisis and catastrophe abstracts the
>>relations of exchange and the problem of realization from the  concrete
>>capitalist totality, and such abstraction puts her closer to bourgeois
>>economics than Marx's critique of political economy.
>Grossman (1929, last page):
>      "Opponents of Marxism accept Luxemburg's critique with great
>jubilation because it entails conceding the defective character of Marx's
>system on a crucial point". 
>Treating one of the longest and most detailed theoretical works within
>Marxist political economy since Marx himself with this type of language is
>one of the barriers being created inhibiting the development of Marxism as
>a living and growing theory open to discussion, greater maturity and even
>departure from Marx.
>Paul Z.

Paul, since this is an endnote, I am not sure to which aspect of RL's 
critique HG is referring. But as an analogy: I would say that 
opponents of Marxism (say Paul Samuelson) greeted Sweezy's acceptance 
of Bortkiewicz's critique with great jubiliation because it entailed 
conceding the defective character of Marx's system at its very 

Yet Shaikh has shown that in a complete transformation, the mass of 
surplus remains equal to sum of capitalists' income composed of 
profit and revenue. And Sweezy has (I think) accepted Shaikh's 
solution. Perhaps RL would have accepted Grossman's more profound 
critique of neo harmonism which she as a revolutionary knew had to be 
destroyed root and branch?


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