> I assume you are familiar with Shaikh's "Political Economy and Capitalism"
> Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 2, 1978, and the (CJE, 1979) reactions
to
> that and Shaikh's (1980) reply?
Mat, it would seem to me that while by introducing rivalrous competition Shaikh breaks with certain aspects of an equilibrium perspective, he does retain the assumption of stationary prices, no? And this is what Kliman, Freeman and mainstream political scientists like Gilpin are questioning. And it seems pretty darn reasonable to me as a non economist (but then again the economists' axiom that money is a veil or a numeraire seems almost insane to me as an non-economist). But you tell me; you have the degree from the New School.
> Also, Rosdolsky is characteristicly good on FROP.
Don't forget (please) that Rosdolsky took it as his task not only to uncover the Hegelian influence which (he believed) was so evident in the Grundrisse (I am not convinced) but to recover the insights of II Rubin and Henryk Grossmann. Now that the latter two are easily available, I would recommend reading them as well (which I am sure you have). The FROP chapters are largely inspired by Grossmann.
By the way, I wrote to Sandy Darity about Grossman who had an important influence on Abram Harris' understanding of Marx. Grossmann wrote the first Marxist theory of plantation slavery, emphasizing its importance to the early stages of capital accumulation (slavery solved the endemic labor shortage which resulted from the extensive nature of early accumulation). Darity traces a line from Harris to a graduate student of his to Eric Williams. And I was wondering whether Harris had developed some ideas about planation slavery from his reading of Grossmann in the first place.
All the best, Rakesh
--