In his last message, John Holloway mentions, towards the end: >the impossibility of a Marxist economics I am not quite sure how this should be understood. I agree with the view that what we do is political economy rather than (neoclassical) economics, that they are mutually incompatible, and that a large part of our job is to criticise (neoclassical) economics. In this sense one could argue that "Marxist economics" is a misnomer, and that we do is a "critique of economics". I have also heard the argument that Marxists do *not* do political economy but, rather, a "critique of political economy" - cf. the title of "Capital". I disagree with this view, because I think it conflates what Marxism *does* with Marx's critique of Ricardo, Smith, etc. Therefore, describing our work as a "critique of PE" seems to me both misguided and misleading (but I may be wrong). John, can you help? Alfredo.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT