Alejandro, when I said as a political response I meant those within Marxism developing Marxism, not T-B's proportionality stuff, which as you correctly say tries to show the essential harmonic capacity of Capitalism. So I didn't 'forget' him..I refer to Jerry's question of developing not obstructing Marxism. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Alejandro Ramos <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> Cc: multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 11 February 2002 22:38 Subject: [OPE-L:6556] Lenin & Schemas Re: Paul Bullock's 6555: [...] I know of no other independent application of the schemas as a political response... <<<< You may be forgetting here the *political* use Tugan-Baranowsky did of the schemas in order to argue that capitalism would be a self replicating entity, founding a tradition which started to crop up with Bortkiewicz and reached its peak with Okishio, Morishima et al. and still is healthy and alive with us. A point I think would deserve more clarification and research is the Lenin-Tugan theoretical relationship. For example, how many people have read the 1st edition of Tugan's book on England Crises and compare it with Lenin early works? And, in particular, how far was actually Lenin from Tugan? Where are Lenin's critiques to the neo-physiocratic theory of value Tugan presents in the 2nd edition of his book on England Crises, and in Theoretische Grundlagen des Marxismus? I have no response to these questions but I do have some reserves about "Lenin amazing capacity to take Marx and apply the critical ideas provided by him." A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST