Re: Re: Engels' (non)reply to Wicksteed

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:00 PM 10/19/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote,
>
> > As I recall this devastating critique of Marx, Wicksteed concentrated on
> > Marx's lack of the theory of rent.  I suspect that he never saw volume 3.
>
> Volume III was published in 1894, Vol. II in 1885. Therefore, Wicksteed
> could only have seen Volume I. (Unless Engels showed him the unpublished
> manuscripts ;-)) So I take it from the discrepency between the
> superlative adjective and the narrow focus that you weren't impressed?
> In his introduction to the collected works, Steedman writes that "some
> writers have regarded Bohm Bawerk's later attack on the labour theory of
> value, of 1896, as inferior to that of Wicksteed."

if I remember correctly, if you look at Steedman's cases of "negative
values with positive prices and negative surplus value with positive
profits," they are cases in which there is economic rent, but that Steedman
had a different definition of value (and thus of surplus-value) than Marx.
See the Mandel & Freeman volume.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine