In [6517] Steve K asks:
> (a) why is the non-neoclassical progress in the development of economic
> analysis still so scant?; and
> (b) why those who explicitly call themselves Marxists have not dominated
> what progress has occurred?
The lack of progress in the development of political economy by heterodox
economists can be attributable to a number of factors including (but not
limited to):
* the hegemony of marginalism in the profession: this has meant that
graduate schools are in general unlikely and hostile breeding grounds
for heterodox studies (this has tended to diminish the amount of
people becoming heterodox economists and their prospects for
getting jobs). In addition, the resources (e.g. grants) available for
research are often not available for heterodox research projects.
Moreover, if heterodox economists do get jobs in the profession,
they generally work in isolation and have to fulfill job-related
requirements for re-appointment and promotion which are often
determined by the dominant school of thought (the neo-neo-classicals).
* Outside of academia, there are few job prospects that most radical
economists feel comfortable with. E.g. who wants to work in the
research departments of large corporations or pro-business 'think
tanks'? And, even if they did, they would find little time to pursue
their own studies and research in political economy. The same is
true for jobs in government agencies. Trade unions hire some
economists but only a small # and they have very little time also
for research on more abstract questions in political economy.
* Of course, one can get a job not as an economist but as a factory
or office worker. In that case, there is so little time off from work
that few workers would have time to conduct serious research in
political economy (and after a long, hard day at work in the
factory or the office most would not have the energy to conduct
that research and study). On the other hand, members of the
industrial reserve army might have time to conduct such research
(a classic dilemma for workers: wages but no time off or time off
but no wages).
* An explosion of interest in Marxist economics (and radical economics
in general) is often a by-product of a working-class and/or
student radicalization. Thus, many of those on this list were
stimulated initially into activism and radical studies by the
student radicalization of the late 60's and early 70's. So long as
that radicalization continued, it was possible for economics
departments dominated by Marxians to exist (e.g. at Amherst and
the New School). With the decline of that radicalization the demand
for courses in heterodox economics eventually diminished.
* The most interest in Marxian economics has often been generated
in countries where there were mass working-class political parties.
Thus, in Germany the pre-WWI SPD had "party schools" where
Marxist political economy was taught to young cadre who were
selected by party leaders. Rosa Luxemburg was a famous teacher
at one of these schools; Karl Radek was a student. Because they
were mass political parties, they also had the resources for these
schools.
I think, in general, that it is more possible to create an atmosphere
where political economy can be advanced where there are a
*group* of students or scholars working together (as was the case
at the NSSR, Amherst, and the above mentioned party school).
In some countries, most notably Germany in the 1970's, there is a
tradition of small groups of like-minded radicals doing collaborative
research and writing and this produced quite a number of books +
articles (e.g. in the defunct journal _Mehrwert_) during that period.
In contrast, working in isolation is a more difficult environment to
create original work in political economy. The Internet, however,
to a great extent now allows for scholarly exchanges and research
by Marxian and heterodox economists and this is very much one of
the purposes and benefits of OPE-L: the types of exchanges that we
are having today would not have been possible 10 years ago.
* Of course, political parties and groupings which are revolutionary
socialist continue to exist but in most countries today they are not
mass parties and often are separated from working-class political
struggles. In some of those organizations, though, studying _Capital_
is encouraged and there might even be study groups of party
members (a small group based in Detroit in the 1970's called the
Revolutionary Marxist Committee did this and produced a bunch
of people who were very knowledgeable about Marx and political
economy as well as some interesting pamphlets on p.e.; of course
other examples in other countries exist -- perhaps Paul B or David
Y could comment on this?). In other political parties, studying
_Capital_ seriously was actively discouraged (it gets in the way of
being a party activist, it was claimed!) and if members wanted to
study p.e. seriously then they were on their own and isolated (in one
case that I am familiar with, Bob Langston, an economist working in
academia who belonged to the SWP [US], was very actively
discouraged by the SWP party leadership from expending any intellectual
energy on research in political economy -- this was the same Bob
Langston whom Ernest Mandel and Alan F dedicated _Ricardo, Marx,
Sraffa_ to -- an additional reason for discouragement was because he
was not a member of the internal tendency/faction that was supported
by the SWP leadership). The sectarian and dogmatic nature of many
Marxist sects today is not likely to be the breeding ground for any real
creative work in heterodox political economy -- they often breed
conformism and respect for authority (Marx, 'the classics' and party
leaders) more than critical thought and anti-authoritarianism.
So, in summary, there have been a number of material conditions which
have conspired to retard the advancement of heterodox and Marxian
political economy. NONETHELESS, a very major reason imo for that lack
of progress is (as I suggested previously) that so few Marxians have even
attempted to extend our understanding of capitalism beyond Marx.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EST