[OPE-L:4484] Re :

=?EUC-KR?B?t/m1v7nO? (rieudm@nownuri.net)
Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:08:22 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

In [OPE-L:4475], Ale said :
>>How does New Interpretation "manage" with e.g. Vol.II, Ch.19 comments on
>>Smith? I would want to know if there are written works on this point. <<
>>I just remember that Rieu D-M has worked the issue. Perhaps he can <<
>>illustrate us about this<<

I'm sorry, Ale. To my knowledge, nobody in N.I.(A.Lipietz, D.K. Foley or
G. Dumenil etc.) explicitly treated this problem, i.e. whether Marxs critique
of Smith dogma is right or not. I,too, want to know what they think of this.
Isnt there Duncan on this net?

My idea is this : Basically, I agree with I.Steedman on his critique of Marx
in "Marx on Ricardo"(1982 paper). I'm sorry that I cant summarize its content.
It takes too much time for me to reproduce its content in English without
original text. Unfortunaaely its 250 miles away now.
But, just one point : What was M.'s point in the critiqu of S. dogma?
M. was to solve the problem of "reproduction of constant capital".
In TSV vol.1, he treated "how it is possible for the annual profit and wages
to buy the annual commodities?" Yes, Marx's point was this. Even though S. dog
dogma itself is correct, it cannot automactically guarantee the realization
problem. I agree to Steedman's technical critique, but I still agree with
Marx in this respect.