[OPE-L:8108] Re: Re: Steedman on Ricardo indeed including constant capital in national product

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@buffalo.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 22:48:59 EST


I'll welcome what you find out.  Note that my query is not connected to 
Luxemburg and reproduction schemes (anyway, not now), but rather to an 
article I'm finishing up on Lenin's economics.  Actually, Luxemburg 
crticized Lenin for overplaying this particular issue, but I still would 
like to get to the bottom of it.


Thanks for the Keith Gibbard's paper.  Having glanced at it, it does 
connect in an indirect manner.

The issue could be pretty significant, it seems to me, because Marx repeats 
the assertion of error by Smith and all other classical economists many 
times, and Steedman basically accuses Marx of carelessness regarding 
Ricardo (in so many words).  My problem is that Steedman's argument is not 
an easy one to grasp.  Keith Gibbard has struggled through it, at least 
part of it.


--On Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:56 PM -0500 "Fred B. Moseley" 
<fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:

> 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.
> Comradely,
> Fred

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 05 2002 - 00:00:00 EST