Re Riccardo's [7l62]: > if I remember well, the term Fundamentalists was used in Fine & > Harris Re-reading Capital with no overt dismissive tone - at least, > if you think that neo-Ricardian is not dismissive for Sraffians. > However, I am in trouble with your answer, since I've always thought > that Fundamentalism implied that there were no theoretical or > analytical problems in Marx, so that the only thing to do for us > followers was to apply and develop for an historically more advanced > situation the original, 'fundamental', line of thought already there > in Capital. For Fine and Harris "capital-logiciians" was understood to be synonymous with "fundamentalist". Yet, no reason is offered for _why_ capital-logical interpretations should be deemed to be "fundamentalist". Nor is there any reason to suppose that "capital-logicians" are necessarily "fundamentalists" in the sense in which you describe above. While I wouldn't exactly say that by labeling capital-logical interpretations "fundamentalist", Fine and Harris are being dismissive, I will say that I think it is a instance of a) loaded terminology; and b) caricature. While I think there are many good things about their book, it does seem to me that at times they caricature both "Neo-Ricardians" and "Fundamentalists" so as to position themselves as more "well-balanced" moderates in between these two "extremes". Consider: "For Fundamentalists, the sphere of production is determinant. Indeed, it is the only sphere of economic activity that they analyze in a consistent manner." (p. l9) Oh, really? This is a simplistic caricature (and therefore, a misrepresentation) of capital- logical interpretations. Yet, also consider: "For Neo-Ricardians all analysis of the capitalist economy takes place in the sphere of exchange and distribution" (Ibid). Oh, really? For authors who don't consider themselves to be either Sraffians or capital-logical theorists, this makes a very nice and easy divide -- but it is less than accurate as a representation of both traditions. I'm still not clear what the origin of the expression Marxist "fundamentalism" is, but if those who adhere to capital-logical interpretations willingly accepted the title of "fundamentalist" that others (such as Fine and Harris) have given them, then I think it was a serious mistake because of the other associations that "fundamentalism" has that I referred to in [7l6l]. In any event, a couple of the "fundamentalists" that Fine and Harris critiqued are on this list (David Y and Paul B) so they might be able to shed some light on the origin of this expression in terms of whether it was a designation that they came up with or one that was imposed upon them but later accepted willy-nilly by some. In solidarity, Jerry PS: At one point OPE-L member Anwar S also referred to his theories as "fundamentalist" -- I'm not sure if he still does -- but very oddly and curiously the F&H l979 book makes no reference to his works.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT