From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Nov 21 2004 - 20:33:21 EST
Riccardo wrote: > >I am not putting together shool of thought: I am trying to insert >topics which were raised by Schumpeter, or Keynes, Do you think Rosa Luxemburg would have been interested in improving Marx with the ideas of those who defended or tried to save bourgeois society? This is what I mean by abusing the spirit of Luxemburg. There is nothing in the Progress and Stagnation piece that suggests this is the kind of thing RL had in mind in developing an open Marxism. > or even Sraffa, in >a Marxian framework. or looked at the economy as a black box input output scheme > That is, first, from within (development of the >Marxian legacy) and second I do not deny that points in Marx were >wrong or that important points were discovered by Schumpeter, or >Keynes, or others. Credit and innovation were discovered by Schumpeter? I think not. Luxemburg argues that Marx discoverd the endogeneity of credit, no (and Claus' recent post shows brilliantly how complex Marx's ideas about money really were)? As Grossmann argued in his review of Business Cycles, Schumpeter's category of Innovation is best understood as a materialization of JS Mill's countertendencies to falling profitability; Or technology induced real business cycles? What then of Sismondi? Schumpeter was original in trying to theorize all this from within a general equilibrium framework. And this lead him to believe in the long term stability of the capitalist economy as long as there was not the political intervention that was, he fantastically believed, the cause of the instability he thought impossible. Did Keynes discover effective demand? No as Cogoy points out Marx did in the reproduction schema. Did Marx make mistakes? Yes. Perhaps primarily those of the kind of not clearly demarcating his epistemological break (the Ricardo for example that remains in his theory of value as a result of common terminology, as Geert Reuten may argue). And he certainly made political errors--see Mehring's criticism of how he handled Lasalle and Bakunin. And did he leave many problems unaddressed, including those that arose after his death? Of course. > >That is, I could put it this way. Would you say Marx was putting >together Smith and Ricardo? Me no: but he praises the former or the >latter. They were object of critique (not criticism: it >incoiprporates and reformulate the truths of Smith and Ricardo). I >think that there has been a political economy after Ricardo until >today, Marx was quite skeptical of scientific political economy after the 1830s; the only important exception he seems to have made is Richard Jones who was of course an uncompromising anti Ricardian. Something that those who try to assimilate Marx to Ricardo should not forget. Yours, Rakesh > and our duty is to make a critique of the political economy of >today. This is definitely not putting together. > >riccardo >-- >Riccardo Bellofiore >Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche >"Hyman P. Minsky" >Via dei Caniana 2 >I-24127 Bergamo, Italy >e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it >direct +39-035-2052545 >secretary +39-035 2052501 >fax: +39 035 2052549 >homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homepage/bellofiore.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 22 2004 - 00:00:02 EST