Re: Proposal for outline on p.e.

[Roderick Hay <rhay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Marx's outline, I would suggest that people look at Michael Lebowitz's
book. I believe it is entitled "Beyond Capital". But it does question
Rosdovsky's interpretation of Marx's plan.

        Rod

On Sun, 6 Aug 1995, Paul Zarembka wrote:

> I am not ready to jump in with specific proposals, but what Jerry says
> here is completely correct and something I deeply feel--we must get on
> with advancing Marxist theory.  Back in my intellectual childhood when I
> was a neoclassical neoclassical, we certainly were not constantly
> debating Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Marshall or even Keynes (altho he has been
> more subject to debate) the way Marxists often do for Marx.  There is
> absolutely no reason for Marxists to be on the defensive in their theory--its
> far ahead of bourgeois theory even when we make mistakes.
>
> Jerry, thanks for driving the point home.  Maybe start, Jerry, by posting
> Marx's outline for future work.
>
> Paul Zarembka
>
> On Sun, 6 Aug 1995 glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > For as long as I have been a Marxist (over 25 years, but I'm only 41), I
> > have heard Marxists repeat over and over again how Marx's analysis of
> > capitalism was incomplete and how we need to further the work on
> > political economy that Marx began. Yet, in my view, Marxist economists
> > spend far more time defending Marx from attack, then advancing his analysis.
> >
> > Putting aside the question why this has been the case for the moment, let
> > us ask: what would be the *first step* towards advancing Marxist economic
> > theory?
> >
> > Let me suggest the following:
> >
> > Let's start with what Marx wrote about his original plan for _Capital_
> > (which is discussed in Rosdolsky's _The Making of Marx's 'Capital'_), and
> > see whether we can develop an *outline* that attempts to trace logically
> > the topics that remain to be studied in greater depth and their sequence
> > (say beginning with Book 3, Part IV).
> >
> > I don't think that we will be able to come to an agreement about a single
> > such outline (given our different understandings of value and method),
> > but why can't we attempt to form such an outline even if it means that we
> > might generate a number of separate outlines?
> >
> > Perhaps this task could be undertaken as a sub-project by different
> > groups of like-minded people. Whether sub-groups attempt to initiate
> > the generation of such an outline or whether it should be a list
> > activity, I think there are *many* list members who would view such a
> > project as a worthwhile endeavor.
> >
> > Perhaps, the above procedure is too simple. Yet, in my view, it is better
> > than letting the current state of inertia continue. If anyone likes my
> > idea and would like to discuss more concretely how we could initiate this
> > task, please send a message to me directly.  I will then see if we can
> > jointly develop a workable plan for how to proceed.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> >
>
>
>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------