Re Steve's [5847]: I think there are some interesting and important issues here for = Marxians. 1. Traditionally, in terms of the history of Marxian economic thought, = Marxists have rejected the distinction between 'microeconomics' and = 'macroeconomics' as an element of neoclassical (and bourgeois) economic thought. More specifically, I think that this (artificial) division reflects = fundamentally different methodologies in terms of comprehending capitalism (and social thought). = This 'internal' artificial division in economics is paralleled by an = 'external' division in which 'political economy' has been transformed into 'economics' and in which = economics is one of many 'social sciences'. 2. Nonetheless, many of the issues discussed in microeconomics are of = interest to Marxians. More specifically, Marxians have (I believe) two = inter-related goals in this area: a) a critique of 'orthodox' microeconomic perspectives; AND = b) the presentation of the issues themselves from a Marxian perspective. I = will consider some implications of this in the rest of this post. 3. One direction that Marxians have taken, the predominant one I = believe, has been to critique orthodox microeconomics and then (perhaps) make some = suggestive remarks about alternative conceptions. IF this is one's goal, then I = agree that it is more appropriate to begin the presentation of the critique with = consumption rather than production. There are a great many merits to what you call = the 'demolition derby' approach. At a minimum, if the critique is = devastating and thorough enough, then it 'clears the way' for alternative anti-orthodox, = e.g. Marxian, perspectives. [btw, the best introductory text to micro that = I've seen that follows this understanding of critique is Frank J.B. Stilwell's = (long out-of-print) _Normative Economics: An introduction to microeconomic theory and = radical critiques_, Pergamon Press (Australia), 1975]. 4. If one seeks to undertake the task though of conceptualizing = 'microeconomic' concerns within a presentation of the subject matter of capitalism, then = I DON'T think that the 'critique ordering' should be selected (or, if it is, one = should at least give some consideration to the methodological implications of = proceeding in that manner). Those Marxian texts that have incorporated a = microeconomic component have generally selected a DIFFERENT ordering -- beginning more = with issues related to class and production than to consumption. 5. There is another major issue as well for Marxians: what is the = 'place', in terms of the logical ordering of the subject matter, for 'microeconomic' = concerns? This, it seems, is related -- from a history of thought perspective -- = to different readings by Marxians of Volume 1 of _Capital_ and its relation to the = rest of _Capital_ and the rest of Marx's theory. E.g. one perspective seems to = be that Volume 1 is basically about microeconomics whereas the rest of _Capital_ is about macroeconomics (this reading might be based in part on a [mis] = reading of the significance of the sub-title for Volume 3 and its relation to = 'macroeconomics'). This presentational focus on beginning with microeconomics and then = going to macroeconomics is embodied within a couple of radical economic texts: i) Francis Green and Bob Sutcliffe _The Profit System: The Economics of Capitalism_, penguin, 1987, out-of-print [a surplus approach = perspective]; and ii) Samuel Bowles and Richard Edwards _Understanding Capitalism: = Competition, Command, and Change in the U.S. Economy_, 2nd, ed., HarperCollins, 1993, = out-of-print [a social structure of accumulation perspective]. An = alternative perspective might be that what constitute 'microeconomic concerns' are = best understood in terms of a level of concretion that _follows_ that of = _Capital_. Nonetheless, I think that advocates of the latter interpretation would = at least grant the claim that there are parts of _Capital_ that have significance = for interpreting more concrete microeconomic questions. The issue, though, isn't one of whether there are 'tidbits' in _Capital_ that have = importance for interpreting these issues. The issue is rather: what is the place for = the issues that have come to be associated with microeconomics in a logical = ordering -- by level of abstraction, if you will allow me the use of that = expression. 6. Orthodox theory, as well, has (many) problems re microeconomics. One (related to the above) problem is how they combine the GET and = indifference curve analysis, etc. part of their theory (which rests very heavily on = their marginalist principles) with more concrete microeconomic issues such as those related to 'industrial organization' (IO). Thus, within the field = of IO there are orthodox writers who present a very marginalist welfare = analysis perspective and there are those who present what I will call a 'neo- institutionalist' perspective that has little basis in marginalist = theory. Thus, as the level of concretion of the subject matter is increased, some of = the orthodox economists seem -- at least to me -- to free themselves of some of the shackles of their 'basic theory' and concentrate on comprehending social, historical and institutional processes. It seems, though, that = they haven't really given consideration to the methodological implications of proceeding in that manner and the implications re relevance of the basic marginalist perspectives. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT