[OPE-L:8261] Milios, et al, "Karl Marx and the Classics"

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@buffalo.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 01 2003 - 12:42:55 EST

Has anyone seen a review of Milios, Dimoulis, and Economakis, "Karl Marx
and the Classics" (Ashgate, 2002, Hampshire, England, and Burlington, VT)?

Among other points it claims that value is conceptually non-measurable and
distinct from Ricardo's.  It sort of reverses the argument of the
declining influence of Hegelian thought in Marx by arguing (as I
understand the book) that Marx in Volume 3 did exhibit a rising influence
of Ricardian thought in the mid-1860s but that he was mistaken when he did
so.  It claims support for its argument by saying that the first seven
pages of Capital, Volume 1, are thoroughly Ricardian but the next 100+
pages *theoretically recast* those first pages.  In other words, there are
two strains in Marx, the book argues, and it supports one strain as more
accurate (by some measure I don't understand) than the other.

The book is rather tough going.  And if value is non-measurable (Althusser
claims this also), then it is hard for me to understand what exactly we
are supposed to be offering theoretically to the working class, e.g., as
to what surplus value is when it cannot be measured.  Of course, an
argument against "empiricism" can be included into the book's argument,
thereby putting counter-arguments on the defensive, but still...

Happy New Year to all.  Paul

P.S. The book doesn't mention Marx's 1865 "Value, Price and Profit"
address to workers, nor his 1881 "Notes on Wagner" which has a lot on
value. These omissions may be of some significance.

"Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists", Vol. 20
RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,  Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 00:00:01 EST