[OPE-L:7279] Re: Re: interpreting Marx's texts

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Wed May 29 2002 - 00:37:57 EDT

On Tue, 28 May 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote:

> > However, critics argue that this theory is contradicted by the tendency of
> > profit rates to equalize across industries.  That is why I think a strong
> > response to this criticism is necessary and worthwhile.
> Hilferding and Bukharin didn't give "strong responses"?
> In solidarity, Jerry


No, I don't think Hilferding and Bukharin gave adequate responses to this
critique.  If I did, I wouldn't be working on this issue.  

First of all, Hilferding responded to Bohm-Bawerk's critique of Marx, but
not to Bortkeiwitz's critique.  Bohm-Bawerk's critique of the
contradiction between Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 and his
theory of prices of production in Volume 3 is weak, and so is Hilferding's
reply.  Bohm-Bawerk's main critique is of Marx's derivation in Chapter 1
of Volume 1 of labor as the common property of commodities that determines
their exchange-values.  Hilferding's response to this more important
critique is also weak and inadequate.  

I don't know what Bukharin had to say about critiques of Marx's theory of
prices of production.  Jerry, could you please tell us?  I doubt if it was
an adequate answer.  I imagine that, at best, it was similar to
Hilferding's answer.  I doubt if Bukharin responded at all to
Bortkeiwitz's critique.  

That is why I think more work needs to be done on this issue.  Because a
satisfactory response to this critique of Marx' s theory has not yet been
given, or at least has not yet been fully developed.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT