Re: [OPE-L] Raya Dunayevskaya Myths and Legends

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Nov 13 2005 - 11:41:07 EST

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:30:43 -0500
  Paul Zarembka <zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU> wrote:
> --On Sunday, November 13, 2005 8:20 AM -0800 Rakesh Bhandari
> <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> wrote:
>> ... Now Paul Z says he did not notice a similarity
>> between HG and RD on Luxemburg. Well RD says
>> that Luxemburg did not understand the level
>> of abstraction of the reproduction schema and that
>> her underconsumptionism is nonsensical. These
>> are HG's two main criticisms. Why does Paul Z
>> not note a similarity? ...
> Such two 'main' issues are commonly proffered criticism of Luxemburg.  You
> don't need Grossman for either one.  Bukharin, in his own way, drew these
> swords.

Bauer was more important of course on this specific issue.

  If one reads my article one can see why the distortions by
> Dunayevskaya and Grossman, in my opinion, are distinct.

No the critique for failure to understand the place of the repro schema in Marx's
approximations is pretty much the same.

How are they distinct? You are not saying I do not understand.
RD hits in the same places HG, drawing from Bauer, already

One can accept that RD's crticism is essentially HG's and one can accept
that your critique of both of them is correct. So I am not arguing
about the validity of your critique at the present, though as you know
I don't find it persuasive for reasons I have explicitly given on this list.

What I do find persuasive however is your argument that RL was not
a simple underconsumptionist.


> Paul
> ***********************************************************************
> RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,  Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science
> ********************

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 00:00:01 EST