[OPE-L:1501] Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory

Gerald Levy (glevy@pratt.edu)
Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:18:23 -0400 (EDT)

re Paul Z's [OPE-L:1500]:

> Yes, and what you don't quote here is the portion of that 1865 letter from
> Marx to Engels which precedes "the whole thing": "Now, regarding my work,
> I will tell you the plain truth about it. There are 3 more chapters to be
> written to complete the theoretical part (the first 3 books). Then there
> is still the 4th book, the historical-literary one, to be written..." In
> other words, by 1865 Marx makes no mention of any planned book on wages.

Isn't _Capital_ the "work" that Marx is referring to? As such, you
wouldn't necessarily anticipate his mentioning a possible book on
wage-labour any more than books on landed property, the state, foreign
trade, or world market and crisis since the remaining books in the
6-book-plan are not parts of _Capital_.

> I don't follow you, Mike. Why is he required to answer these particular
> questions of yours?

Paul -- may I ask you a hypothetical question?

Suppose you wrote an article for _Capital & Class_ on the "Political
Economy of Lollypops". Let's say, then, that Suzanne writes a reply to
your article in the same journal and challenges your findings on the
"lollypop question." At the time, you decide -- for whatever reason --
not to reply to Suzanne's article. No one would question that you have
that right.

Now suppose years go by and you write a book on "The political economy of
lollypops". In that book you briefly mention Suzanne's position but not
her critique of *your position* that appeared in print in _C&C_. Nor do
you even list Suzanne's article in your "Bibliography".

Now, this is obviously a hypothetical scenario -- and its not only because
your research interests are not focused on lollypops (nor are Suzanne's).
It is hypothetical because I *CAN NOT* believe that you would *NOT* at
least refer to Suzanne's article in your book and include the reference
in your "Bibliography". Moreover, I don't think that anyone on this list
could imagine that *YOU* would do such a thing.

If you can't imagine yourself doing this, why would you imagine that
someone else could or should do this?

In solidarity, Jerry

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