From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 07:42:03 EST
Rakesh wrote: > And still the name Steedman only means the critique of Marx to > most people, no? Most people? No. Most people have never heard of Ian Steedman. Those who have tend to be heterodox economists (a small minority even within the economics profession) or (mostly graduate) heterodox-leaning economics students. Steedman's name only is associated with a critique of Marx for an exceptionally small number of people internationally who are students and scholars of Marx. Steedman and Okishio are _Marxian_ obsessions. > At any rate, > Documenting the limits up against which Scandinavian social > democracy came, Moschonas (2002)<snip, JL> I don't see the relevance of the rest of your post. You seem to be asserting that surplus approach theorists are social democratic. This is an unwarranted assertion. While I have no doubt that some surplus approach theorists are social democratic, others consider themselves to be revolutionaries. E.g. in the 1970's, several of the leading (as they were called then) Neo-Ricardians in the UK were members of the International Marxist Group (IMG). In that same (Trotskyist) political group, Alan Freeman and other decidedly non-social democratic theorists were members (the IMG also was affiliated with the United Secretariat of the Fourth International, one of the leaders of which was the late Ernest Mandel). There is no evidence that I am aware of which suggests that the 'Neo-Ricardian' IMG members advocated a different political programme from the party majority. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 05 2003 - 00:00:01 EST