Addendum to [5765] on the origins of the 'hostility to the Sraffian tradition': Once upon a time, there was the Cambridge Controversies. During that time, most Marxists were quite happy to sit on the sidelines and cheer for what became the Post-Keynesians and Sraffians. From the perspective of many Marxists, this was great fun and they immensely enjoyed seeing the marginalists finally get their come-upence. During this time, there were very friendly relations indeed between advocates of these different perspectives. E.g., if you look at the reviews by Dobb and Meek of _PMCC_, they gave it raves. To be sure, Joan Robinson had already been highly critical of Marx in _An Essay on Marxian Economics_ (2nd edition, 1967) but I think Dobb, Meek and others thought that she and the others would 'come around' eventually to a more Marxist perspective. THEN, along came Steedman's _Marx after Sraffa_ (1977) and things were never the same again. There could be no doubt, based not only on substance but also tone, that Steedman's book was like a "Declaration of War". This, of course, led to equally sharp critiques by others (e.g. in Mandel and Freeman ed. _Ricardo after Marx_ and Fine ed. _The Value Dimension: Marx versus Ricardo and Sraffa_ - articles originally published in _Economy and Society_, 1972-84) of Ricardo, Sraffa ... and Steedman. So, in brief, I would say that the origins of the 'hostility' can be directly traced to 1977 when Steedman's book was published. In solidarity, Jerry > Gary asks in [5763]: I'd be interested to hear what other listmembers think about this connection between Ricardo and Marx, since so much Marxist hostility to the Sraffian tradition stems from the belief that it inappropriately attempts to "transform Marx into Ricardo" (as one TSSer has put it). <
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT