>On Thu, 31 May 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > >> I think they have effectively derailed what was supposed to be the >> point of this list--to extend Marx's unfinished project into a >> theory of the world market, the state, central bank policy, etc. >> As Steve said, the point of his interventions has been to handicap >> the Marxian theoretical project. > >I'm not quite sure who the "they" above is supposed to denote, though >from the context it seems to refer to Steve Keen, Gil Skillman and >others who are not actually self-described Marxists. > >This seems a tendentious if not fantastical claim. I'm afraid that, >most of the time, the "core" self-described Marxists on the list are >much more inclined to debate the interpretation of Marx's writings and >logical/philosophical issues relating to the consistency or otherwise >of Marx's theories, Allin in my opinion this is because marxians are powerless, and find that they have to defend themselves from charges of logical incoherence if they are to be considered respectable. That is, the agenda for Marxist economics has been set in the bourgeois academy; Steve, Gil and AJit are merely bringing that point of view into this debate. The economists here being academic economists have to respond (or concede as you have) to these charges re: the transformation problem and the Okishio theorem if they are to be considered respectable members of the economics profession. The development of Marx's own theory or the condition of the working class in the present world economy cannot be the main purpose of a list composed of academic economists. This much should be clear at this point. By the way, the debate between Nicky and Fred is in my opinion not so much about the logical coherence of marx's theory but how it succeeds or fails in theorizing the historical specifity of the capitalist mode of production. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:09 EDT