"'To-Day' has become a mere 'symposium', i.e. a review in which everyone
can write for and against socialism. Next No. a critique of 'Capital'! I
was supposed to reply to this anonymous writer, but declined with
thanks."
-- Engels to Kautsky, Sept. 20, 1884.
I've read Wicksteed's critique
This "classic (marginal) utilitarian defence of equality" is precisely
the invideous "comparison" that the mathematically obsessed wunderkinder
of the 1930s (e.g. Bergson, Samuelson) banished from the social welfare
function and replaced with Pareto optimality as the "ethical test".
There is a
"'To-Day' has become a mere 'symposium', i.e. a review in which everyone
can write for and against socialism. Next No. a critique of 'Capital'! I
was supposed to reply to this anonymous writer, but declined with
thanks."
-- Engels to Kautsky, Sept. 20, 1884.
The critique in question was titled
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.
"'To-Day' has become a mere 'symposium', i.e. a review in which everyone
can write for and against socialism. Next No. a critique of 'Capital'!
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.
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
http://www.qut.edu.au/arts/human/ethics/conf/flat.htm
A relatively large number of references to distributional issues can be found
in Wicksteeds
non-economic works in this later period. It is of some interest to record,
for example, Wicksteeds
views of the distribution of income at about
