>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. That's true, but if they consider those critiques answered and go about applying Marx, they'll have almost no place in the academy. That is not true of the neo classical economists who pay no price for ignorning the capital debates. Rakesh > 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