Regarding Mason Gaffney's recent point, we actually do have the original
German. It doesn't say Faktoren. It says Elemente.
More generally, it seems some may think there is a certain scientific magic
in the word "factor," so that discovering who found the magic first is
discovering who won that particular race to advance economic "science."
Without proposing a discussion on this (enormous) issue in the history of
thought, I would only suggest keeping in mind also that since like all
words "factor" is historical, it means different things at different times
to different people. I suspect that in Germany and Austria (including its
empire), because of Leibnitz, maybe Kant, and certainly Hegel, the word
Faktor carried for many professors in the nineteenth century a mathematical
meaning (as "factor" had in England since Newton's time), although Faktor
also meant agent, partisan, representative, commercial rep, steward, etc.,
as it did in English. The meanings are different. But both seem to drift
into classical economics, evidently somewhat into Marx's work too, and
later into neo-classical economics, until they acquire the formal,
professionally determined definitions toward the end of the 19th century
that we still recognize today. If this is the case, I think it would be
significant for understanding the development of modern concepts of
production. But does the notion look quite wrong to you all, experts in the
history of economics? Or is it worth more pursuing?
John Womack
|