What "critique"? Let's recall that Sraffa claimed _only_ that the _PCMC_ represented a "prelude to a critique of economic theory" (the sub-title of _PCMC_). He was very specific about this: "It is, however, a peculiar feature of the set of propositions now published that, although they do not enter into any discussion of the marginal theory of value and distribution, they have nevertheless been designed to serve as a basis for a critique of that theory. If the foundation holds, the critique may be attempted later, either by the writer or by someone younger and better equipped for the task" (_PCMC_, p vi). As far as I know, Sraffa never claimed that he was later able to attempt that critique nor did he claim that others had successfully developed a critique of marginalism that was built on his "foundation". This leads to my *first question*: in the 42 years since his book was published, has anyone built a critique of marginalism on the foundations of his book? It seems to me that the re-switching and capital-reversing literature is *not* the critique that Sraffa had in mind. What then would be? The *second question* would be: how did Sraffa understand the meaning of "critique"? Did he understand it in the same way as Marx? ... Wittgenstein? ... Hegel? Are these understandings of critique the same? (I think not.) The *third question* might be: in what specific sense was _PCMC_ a "prelude" to a critique of marginalism? Did Sraffa believe that a comprehension of capitalism could be built on a "foundation" that itself only claimed to be a prelude to critique? Note here that Marx attempted to critique (primarily) classical political economy whereas Sraffa attempted to lay the basis for a critique of marginalism. This, then, leads, me to my *last question*: does the comprehension of capitalism through critique depend on the engagement of a *particular* economic theory? For instance, does the critique of marginalism serve the same purpose as the critique of cpe? (although of course, Marx subjected other economists to critique as well.) Would we be equally able to comprehend capitalism through the critique of (old style) institutionalism, neo-institutionalism, post-Keynesian theory, monetarism, et al? For that matter, could we develop an understanding of capitalism and develop the "economic law of motion of modern society" through a critique of other social theorists who aren't economists, e.g. Durkheim, Weber, Rousseau, Sartre? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT