Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 05:51:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy-AT-pratt.edu>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: Juan's thesis


Hinrich Kuhls wrote:

> >Vulgar economics, according to Marx, began with the disintegration of the
> >Ricardian school. There are many references to ve in _TSV_ (especially
> >Part III, Ch. 20) and _Capital_.
> Thanks for this profound erudition!

Do I detect a little sarcasm here, Hinrich?

> >BTW, I didn't "refuse" to explain the meaning of that expression. I just
> >didn't have time to describe it at length then or now. Sorry.
> May I point you to a systematic interpretation of those *many references* in
> TSV, in case your disposable time will allow you to read the following book?
> In contrast to groups who just outline their discussion on PE without
> publishing any result this author's collective has published the results of
> their discussions. But that's decades ago - and was not connected to get
> some [more] academic laurels:
> Projektgruppe Entwicklung des Marxschen Systems:
> Der 4. Band des "Kapital"?
> Kommentar zu den "Theorien ueber den Mehrwert".
> Westberlin: VSA, 1975, 677 pages.
> ISBN 3-87975-053-X

I have just a little "disposable time" for a short response (to another
uncharacteristically sarcastic comment). Unfortunately, I haven't read the
above reference (although, I recall some other publications by the same
group). Obtaining copies even in xeroxed form of many works in political
economy published in Germany is not so easy in the US. I once, with his
permission, raided Willi Semmler's excellent collection, but the above
work was not in it.

However, to the point at hand, Marx is very straight-forward in describing
the characteristics of ve in _TSV_. For that reason, I think, there has
been little debate in terms of what it meant to him. However, going back
to the 1970's authors like Cogoy and Mattick have pointed out what they
believe are the similarities of ve to Neo-Ricardianism. For those who are
interested, I would suggest a simultaneous reading of Ian Steedman's _Marx
After Sraffa_ and the _TSV_ sections on Ricardo (who was not a ve,
according to Marx) and the ves (especially Part III, Ch. 20) to see why.

Yet, to imply as Juan has, that *all* Marxists writing on political economy
(save one or perhaps two, if we include you) are vulgar economists - even
when they reject linear production theory and defend Marx's conception of
value - is to take away _any_ specific, historical meaning to that
expression. It also is very poor scholarship to simply dismiss the
writings of most Marxists with the unsupported accusation that they are
vulgar economists. It also should alert readers to the extreme lengths
with which a particular "scientific" conception has reproduced itself
concretely in thought so as to exclude, basically, the rest of the Marxist
world. It should also be read as a partial explanation for why a critical
dialogue with this individual has not happened in certain circles since if
a discussion *begins* with the accusation that virtually every other
Marxist writing on political economy in the world is either a bourgeois
economist or a vulgar economist, then very few of those people will
believe that such a discussion will be beneficial or productive.

Finally, regarding your not-so-subtle comment above that "certain groups
who just outline ...", I suggest that you contact me off-list.

Jerry

PS: Please _excuse me_ if I don't have the time at present to write a long
essay or book on ve for this list at this time. I _do_ have to
allocate time for work, including the grading of many papers and exams at
this point of the semester. I also want to have some time for political
activism. Having just a little time for a social life would be nice as
well, although, that appears to be more of a luxury at present. However,
you may have more "free" time than I have at present. If that is the case,
then you can take your own advice and write a long essay for publication
on this list on this topic.



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---