[OPE-L:1503] Re: Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory

Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:05:50


I have neither criticized nor defended Lapides for a non-answer. I may
have an opinion AFTER we get his opportunity to say something (I have no
idea if he has yet seen ANY of this thread). There are both good and bad
reasons for non-answers and I'll be pretty careful before laying out or
accepting a "scholarly dishonesty" charge (actually I don't recall this
ever coming up on this list--maybe some said something like that
privately, I don't know, but publicly...).

I will confirm that the "Select Bibliography" in Lapides includes Mike's
1992 book but not Mike's S&S 1993 article (which I haven't seen). What I
have been attempting, at least in part, is to focus on whether this
non-answer is the ONLY evidence being offered for "scholarly dishonesty"
(other disagreements being the usual disagreements we always find on this

On the Marx to Engels letter, "the whole thing" does seem to refer to what
became the four volumes of Capital (also Marx's October 1866 letter to
Kugelmann). If it is being suggested that a book on wage labor, outside
Capital, remained in Marx's work place into the mid-1860s and beyond,
well, I open to discussion.


Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY web site
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

On 10/19/99 at 12:18 PM, Gerald Levy <glevy@PRATT.EDU> said:

>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