Re Ale's [6344]: > do you *really* believe that capitalism can be "systematically" > understood building on general equilibrium theory and marginalism? No, I don't. My point was that this is more their 'project' rather than interpreting Marx. > General equilibrium > is, as its founding father himself proclaimed, a Platonic creature. > How can be this helpful to give us some light on the real, > historical society we live in? If GET was all that AM was about, I'd agree with you. But, I wouldn't by any means dismiss attempts to comprehend contemporary economic relations using game-theoretic strategic models, would you? I would particularly like to hear more about that perspective when an advocate of it (Gil) claims that it his perspective is rooted in historical materialism. > >> the Copernican world of John Roemer. > >As we saw last year, it is other Marxists -- some who are self- > proclaimed advocates of 'Marx's Marxism' -- who claim the title > of being Copernicans. > I think all these "adjectives" cannot contribute to the dialogue. Which 'adjectives' are you objecting to? > However, I do remember Gil offering us his "Copernican" proposals > in a no so distant past. I don't remember that. Gil: did you ever claim to be a Copernican or suggest that your perspectives are Copernican? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST