I think Alejandro is perhaps bending the stick too far (conceding "the profession" to the class enemy). Earlier today I had occasion to pick up "Marxian Economics", The New Palgrave, 1990. A days ago, "A History of Marxian Economics" by Howard and King (a survey I don't much care for, but it surely leads one to lots of sources). Yes, there are controversies and disagreements contained therein. But is this not also true in other sub-disciplines of economics? And don't forgot the Marx was voted THE intellectual of the last MILLENIUM (was it Time magazine?)! Anyway, imagine how Paul Sweezy must have felt through the 1950s and early 60s -- more isolated than we are. I don't think the problem is "the profession" but character of the class struggle. The working class movement has been weakened substantially (where is 1968 France? -- check the value of the French franc at borders at that time, 1970 Chile? the struggles in the Portuguese colonies? Vietnamese anti-imperialism?) so that the bourgeois and petty bourgeois economists can look at Marxist economics with comtemptuous disdain. Of course, for the purposes of getting and holding an academic position, that is a misfortune and can lead to certain constraints. But in that we are looking to the emancipation of peoples very often very much worse off than we are, it should not affect our work in the slightest (of course it does, but we must struggle against it). Concerning intra-Marxist relations, Rakesh has a point that ought to be examined, maybe within our individual thoughts (I'm almost tempted to use the expression "self-criticism" but I don't think this is a useful formulation in an internet interchange). I don't expect much change, however, as we as individuals are mostly whom we are. Paul Z. *********************************************************************** Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka Alejandro Ramos <aramos@btl.net> said, on 11/10/00: >I think Rakesh is essentially right regarding the issue of Marxists >economists. >"Marxist economist" is an oxymoron. >From point of view of the profession, being Marxist today is something that >only a lunatic can be. For the *real economists* Marx is considered an >old fashioned proponent of a *logically inconsistent* theory of >capitalism and then he has no credit at all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST