Re Allin's [6667] and Rakesh's [6668]: >From [6667]: > The notion that Hayek has a valuable contribution to make on this (let > alone, more valuable than Keynes's) seems to me fashionable nonsense. >From [6668]: > Allin, did you make > any use of John Strachey's The Nature of Capitalist Crisis, which > seems to include the first Marxist critique of Hayek's cycle theory? Interesting. The "fashionable nonsense" reaction seems to be Rosdolsky's evaluation of Strachley (_The Making of Marx's Capital_, pp. 304-305). As I'm sure Rakesh is aware of, Blake's evaluation of Strachley is mixed: on the one hand 2 of his works [_Nature of Capitalist Crisis_ and _Theory and Practice of Socialism_] are said to be "helpful" but on the other hand they are damned: "They lack philosophical content, and in this they are not much superior to such documents as Leontiev" [reference to Leontiev's _Political Economy_] (Blake, p. 675). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST