Two messages from Harry Cleaver in response to [7024] follow. As "B" was short, I re-typed in order to decrease the # of posts./ In solidarity, Jerry A. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave@eco.utexas.edu> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:06 AM > *sigh*, see below, as usual John and I agree. > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Holloway" <johnholloway@prodigy.net.mx> > > To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> > > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:02 PM > > Subject: [OPE-L:7024] Re: [Harry Cleaver] Re: a boring question (for John H > > and others) > > > > > > > Harry says: > > > > I don't. For many years I have confronted this tendency on the part of > > > > student critics of capitalism, especially Marxist students, to complain > > > > about mainstream economics being boring and trivial and not worth the > > > > trouble. During this time I have argued the following: while there are a > > > > lot of boring technical details, especially as the profession sought > > more > > > > and more sophisticated mathematics to accomplish more or less the same > > > > things as in the past, in general the study of mainstream economics > > should > > > > be taken on as an essential exercise in class espionage. Mainstream > > > > economics is not just ideology and not just wrong; it is a key component > > > > of capitalist strategy and is used to devise tactics against the rest of > > > > us. To think that the enemy's thinking is boring and trivial is to risk > > > > not taking it seriously and not learning to read it strategically and > > thus > > > > not understanding the strategies and tactics being used against you. > > [John says:] > > > > > > When I say that economics is boring, I do not mean that it is not > > > important to study it. I mean that to understand economics as capitalist > > > strategy, we must understand that a fundamental aspect of that "strategy" > > is > > > that the economic form is actively boring: it bores, it alienates, it is > > > part of the process of separating us from the collective determination of > > > our own doing. The economic form is a process of excluding the subject, in > > > other words. It is a process of boring (but it is not trivial). > > Agreed. I've sometimes said the main reason why economics is "the dismal > science" is because of the way it is taught: it alienates most students, > bores them to tears and they never want to take another course or think > about it again if they can avoid it. > > > > > > > > Harry says: > > > > > > > Read in the spirit of espionage and as an urgent task in the > > > development > > > > of counterstrategies in the class struggle, bourgeois economics is not > > > > boring but as exciting as the investigation of enemy plans discovered on > > a > > > > military battlefield. > > > [John says:] > > > The great danger of the military metaphor, of course, is that it > > > suggests a symmetry in class struggle. One army is essentially the same as > > > another. It is crucially important (as I'm sure you'll agree) to see that > > > class struggle is asymmetrical, that our struggle is not the mirror image > > of > > > capital's. Hence the critique of political economy, the impossibility of a > > > Marxist economics. > > > > > > John > > Aye. As El Sup has argued so well in "Book of Mirrors" and elsewhere. > http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~zapatistas/sim.html for those not familiar > with this indispensible work. > > Harry > > ............................................................................ > Snail-mail: > Harry Cleaver > Department of Economics > University of Texas at Austin > Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA > > Phone Numbers: > (hm) (512) 442-5036 > (off) (512) 475-8535 > Fax:(512) 471-3510 > > E-mail: > hmcleave@eco.utexas.edu > PGP Public Key: http://certserver.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=hmcleave > > Cleaver homepage: > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html > > Chiapas95 homepage: > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html > > Accion Zapatista homepage: > http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ > ............................................................................ B. BTW I made some of this argument in the early l980s in the context of critiquing a lot of Marxist readings of Marx's crisis theory as economics: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/MarxEcoorRev.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT