Re: [OPE-L] Grundrisse. Help

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Fri Jul 28 2006 - 23:54:46 EDT

>Marx's purpose in discussing the simple and enlarged reproduction of
>society's total capital is, I think, really considerably different from
>Quesnay's discussion.

Yes. Rick Kuhn argues, following HG, that Marx reworks Quesnay
with Sismondi's insights into the basic structure of capitalism; the result
is an analysis of the reproduction of total capital with a view to
the measurement
of surplus value independent of its forms. We can see how the different forms
of capital fit into this reproduction process and the determinants of
its growth
(including of course the turnover speed).

Before this can be done there can be no real theory of capitalist
dynamics. Hence, the Grossman/Tribe argument that the character of
Marx's theory
changes considerably after the assimilation of Quesnay as modified by Sismondi.

For this reason, Marx's Capital is not a simple continuation or
expansion of the Grundrisse.

This was the thesis I was asking Chris about.

I think Chris rejects it.

>I think also that Marx's analysis of this reproduction process is very
>incomplete, and there is much more that needs to be said about it.

Sure. I think everyone is agreed on that. Marx does not assimilate the theory
of credit, for example.

>would shed more light on the equilibrium discussion we had about the nature
>of markets.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT