From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 13:12:15 EST
I agree that the criticism of capital as an aggregate notion has been in fact superseded by the development in GET, and added that these development were actually self-destructive to GET. I think that the book on Marx, though interesting, gave a one-sided, partial and wrong criticism of Marx. I am not making an assessment of the overall contribution of JR to economic thought. Do you think somebody on the list have doubts that I am in favour of an HETERODOX reading of Marx? I think that we should relax a bit ... riccardo At 12:48 -0500 24-11-2004, Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote: > >>> In fact, I agree with very much of what is written here - except for >some adjective which add nothing to content: insidious, for example. >But the substance is right. <<< > >Riccardo, > >What are you saying? You seem to be agreeing with him that >her critique of marginal productivity theory "certainly does not compensate >for her [...] attempt to vanquish [...] Marx by making him appear as a >proto Keynesian." This is an unbelievably narrow assessment of >the contribution of Robinson to economic theory -- especially the >_critique_ of economic theory. Just think of all of the other >contributions >that she made to theory! That she should have taken a critical standpoint >towards Marx -- something that we should _all_ do, Marxists >_especially_ -- is not cause for asserting that on balance she made >a negative contribution to thought. > >In solidarity, Jerry -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Hyman P. Minsky" Università di Bergamo 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://wwwesterni.unibg.it/dse/homepage/bellofiore.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 25 2004 - 00:00:01 EST