Re Steve K's [5759]: > In other words, like the majority of non-orthodox economists, they = have long abandoned any explicit reliance on Marx because they don't = want to be tainted with the brush of the labour theory of value. < Yes, there are political implications of what you call the LTV that they perhaps are not ready for. So it has been since the 'marginalist (counter-) revolution' against the political implications of cpe and the Ricardian socialists. Yet, what theory of value do these heterodox economists adhere to? Of course, surplus approach economists (like Gary and Ajit) have a theory of value. But, what about the rest of them? What, for example, is the 'Post- Keynesian' (or Post-Kaleckian) theory of value? E.g. what theory of value does 'PD' advocate on PKT? Have they -- yet -- thoroughly and completely abandoned the marginalist dogma including the marginal utility theory of value? Or do they just sidestep the whole issue (and thereby one of the fundamental issues of political- economic theory) by not explicitly putting forward a theory of value that they advocate (so that it can then be subject to critique)? If that is the case, then perhaps we should view them as a (a-theoretical) neo-institutionalist (unprincipled) combination which has a clearer idea about what they reject than what they accept? If so, isn't that = just plain ... bunk? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT