[OPE-L:8107] Re: Steedman on Ricardo indeed including constant capital in national product

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 21:56:58 EST

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Paul Zarembka wrote:

> Steedman wrote a chapter in 1982 on "Marx on Ricardo" in *Classical and
> Marxian Political Economy* in which he claimed that Marx was wrong to
> assert that Ricardo, like Smith, left out constant capital in the value of
> national product.  I have not seen any rejoinder to Steedman (Fred Moseley
> has an article in 1998 on Smith's error but doesn't even cite Steedman).
> Has anyone seen a rejoinder to this point of Steedman's?  Since Marx
> repeatedly says that Smith and Ricardo were wrong, it would seem pretty
> significant if Marx himself were in error.
> Thanks,  Paul

Paul, thanks for the reference.  I had never heard of this paper of
Steedman's before.  I will check it out.

But whether Ricardo made the same mistake as Smith is a side issue for
me.  The point of my paper is that the main purpose of Marx's reproduction
schemes is to critique "Smith's dogma", not to analyze whether or not
capitalism has a tendency to simple or expanded reproduction without
crises.  Thus, Rosa Luxemburg and many others have misunderstood the
purpose of Marx's reproduction schemes.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 04 2002 - 00:00:01 EST