On Thu, 31 May 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > >> 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. me: > >I don't find that very convincing. Sraffa's critique, for instance, > >was directed more at neoclassical economics than at Marxism, yet with > >the exception of a few "high theorists" who strove to dispute Sraffa's > >claims, most neoclassical economists just got on with the job > >regardless, extending and applying. Rakesh: > so Allin what's your point? marxists have been forced to respond to a > critique which does not even apply to them... My point was just that marxists are not actually *forced* to spend all their time responding to critique. The example of neoclassical economics under Sraffa's critique shows that another option is just getting on with the job -- if there is a job to be got on with, i.e. an active research program that is throwing up new problems, concepts and methods. Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:27 EDT