Alejandro Ramos wrote: > Jerry, > > 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. > > A more learned version of this considers Marx as a sort of Ptolemaian > astronomer --we just heard this comparison on this list!-- and, as no > Ptolemaian can get a post as *astronomer* today, no Marxist can apply to an > *economist* job today. She or he can be "economist" but not in her or his > condition of Marxist. It's the same thing that someone who apply to a M.D. > job whose credentials are being an Astrologer, follower of a XIX century > mystic. > > This is the *real* and widespread appraisal of the profession regarding > Marx. And, I'd add that the so-called "Marxist economists" have contributed > a lot to this situation. I think this is what Rakesh refers to as the > "tremendously destructive role of Marxist economists." They are the people > who permanently have said and "demonstrated" that, in effect, Marx's theory > is logically flawed, that he is a Ptolemaian still waliking in the XX century. > > It's quite possible that in rich countries having well funded academic > institutions somebody can get a post as "Marxist Economist" but this is an > exception. In my own personal professional experience as economist I MUST > take out from my Personal History whatever thing looks like Marxism. > Otherwise, nobody would give me any job. In Latin America, it would be > simply crazy to be a "Marxist Economist" outside perhaps some limited > spaces in the academy in Mexico and Brazil. > > >From the point of view of Marxism, being an *economist* today would be > crazy too. In the last 30 years, economists have been behind every > unpopular, rich oriented policy. In Latin America, economists were > ideological and practical pillars of dictators as Pinochet and Videla. > Economists are the people cited as *scientific authorities* for supporting > any neoliberal policy and uniformly they do this job. Today, economists are > essentially ideologues of the right wing and institutions such the World > Bank and IMF and all the network they control. This is the real status of > the profession. Besides this, you can survive making very marginal things, > not to speak of being "Marxist Economist"!!! > > Alejandro R. I agree with Alejandro Ramos. However, I agree also with Levy previous message about this subject. I think it is necessary to work on economic problems no to helping capitalism for surviving but to transform capitalist in a democratic new socialism. It can be done in a wide spectrum of problems, from practical to theoretical problems. I assume there are not magical rules about the "right way" to produce valuable research on economic problems. A Spanish friend told me:"In Spain, Marxist are not economist and economist are not Marxist". I believe this sentence is valid for Mexico and many other countries. Nevertheless it remain necessary critical economists in many places. Alejandro Valle Baeza
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST