There are too many posts on this thread for me to reply to each individually, so I'll simply make a few points. 1) To take the position that Marxists can not be "real economists" (see Alejandro R's [4491]) is to support a position that can lead to the rationalization of the *suppression* of Marxists who work in the economics profession. Thus, those who object to the term "Marxist economist" can find themselves in the same camp as -- and can even find themselves being quoted by! -- reactionary economists. 2) It is true that mainstream economists don't tend to view Marxist economists as "real economists". Since when do we let them determine what we should call ourselves? Why should we capitulate to mainstream economists on this point? Don't you realize that this is a position that can be used against us (see above)? 3) There is nothing magical about the expression Marxist economist. Why haven't others on the left objected to expressions like "Marxist journalist" or "Marxist statistician"? It is equally true that in the journalist and statistical communitities, Marxists are marginalized and not treated as "real". Should we therefore agree that there are no Marxist journalists or statisticians? 4) By all means we should note the suppressive and ideological role of bourgeois economists. Hell, I don't even like to socialize with mainstream economists (boring people, as a whole, imo). And I don't give a damn what they think about me! But, I find it a little ironic that some of those who work as economists and attend economics conferences (e.g. the annual EEA conference) say that they are not economists. If you work as a duck in a duck department and subscribe to publications for ducks and conferences of ducks, you are a duck! In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST