From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 10:46:38 EST
Rakesh wrote: > >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. > I don' think so. The exception is a Sweezy. People like Bhaduri and > Pollin are typical. I think you are confusing two quite different intellectual traditions: the surplus approach school and the Baran-Sweezy (MR) school. Bob Pollin is not a surplus approach theorist. > I would imagine that these theorists were not in fact surplus > approach thinkers but were interested in Sraffian work only insofar > as it was a immanent critique of neo classical economics, not a > critique of Marx. Actually, the focus of their written work was more on explaining trends within contemporary capitalism rather than on Sraffa's critique of marginalism. A prominent example from that period was _British Capitalism, Workers and the Profit Squeeze_ by Glyn and Sutcliffe. Some of these people also participated in debates on such topics as productive labor, domestic labor, the TRPF, etc (these were mostly 'pre-Steedman' debates). > But you seem to be denying that there are important contradictions > between Marxian theory and Sraffian theory. Surplus approach theorists would be the first to admit that there are important contradictions between their perspectives and that of Marx. You seem to be suggesting above that Sraffian theory and Marxian theory are counter-posed which is a position which suggests an _identity_ between Marx's theory and Marxian theories. > You want everyone to get > along and cooperate and be nice to each other. No. I want criticism to be fairly leveled at different theoretical perspectives. I also think that heterodox economists can _learn_ from each other which is rather hard to do if the focus is only on "sharpening differences." In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 05 2003 - 00:00:01 EST