[OPE-L:1499] Re: Re: Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory

Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:41:31

On 10/19/99 at 01:02 AM, "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@sfu.ca> said:

>The sequence of events is
>that his 1992 S&S article in passing criticised the position I had
>advanced in my book. I responded, setting out the sequence of Marx's
>references on assuming the standard of necessity constant, etc. (much as
>in my recent message to the list) and posing the questions I quoted. He
>chose not to respond, and I thought the matter was closed. After the list
>discussion on his book, I sought it out in the university library and,
>upon reading it, came to the conclusion indicated about his scholarly

Mike, If I understand you correctly this is a new conclusion of yours,
about "scholarly integrity", that you had no beef against Lapides before
you read his new book (other than the disagreement about Marx). If so,
we'll just have to wait for what Lapides replies.

Regarding substance of the issues, I see that I may be misreading you.
Are you saying that 1) in Marx himself as written, there is no "basic
standard of living" of workers and therefore v depends upon class struggle
(and production of relative surplus value), OR 2) IF Marx had written that
missing book, then doubt would have been erased about his position?

If the former, it would seem to me that perhaps any "missing book" would
not be missing, Marx's point is already there (and Lenin understood the
issue without restoring to "missing book"). If the latter, then a
position such as I understand Luxemburg's is also credible as Marx's own
perception is ambiguous.

For my clarification, what is the difference between you and Lapides other
than the question of whether a "missing book" is called for? And, what is
at stake over the "missing book", if we were to agree that v is determined
by class struggle. I guess this is another way of asking you to respond
to Ajit's comment: "The most significant part of this [Lapides'] book is
its chapter on the missing book controversy. Hopefully Lepides's
contribution would put to rest this pedantic debate once and for all." If
you prefer, you can just direct me to the relevant pages in "Beyond
Capital" (I don't, however, have yours or Lapides' S&S articles of 1992 or


Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:31 EST