From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sun Mar 27 2005 - 08:05:09 EST
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Keen" <S.Keen@uws.edu.au> To: <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 6:04 AM Subject: RE: [OPE-L] Michio Morishima, 1923-2004 Interesting post Jerry! Keep me in the loop on this one. For my part, I wasn't particularly influenced by Morishima--I think he took a wrong tack in trying to express Marx in marginalist terms because Marx's theory of value was fundamentally objective whereas the neoclassicals have a subjectivist theory of value. My interest is in providing a proper expression of an objective and dialectical theory of value--and as you know I regard the labor theory of value as flawed in that light. Of the latter group of scholars you mention, the one I do give great credence to is Arun Bose. His "Marx on inequality and exploitation" is a classic--and, as it happens, so is the critique he has in there of the labor theory of value. Cheers, Steve Steve Keen www.debunking-economics.com Ph: 61 (0)2 4620 3016 Mb: 61 (0)425 248 089 -----Original Message----- From: Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com [mailto:Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com] Sent: Sat 3/26/2005 12:26 AM To: Stephen Keen Subject: Fw: [OPE-L] Michio Morishima, 1923-2004 ----- Original Message ----- From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Michio Morishima, 1923-2004 > Jerry, Morishima was one of the few academic economist (Non Marxist) who considered Marx seriously, even he did not understand Marx originality. > On the contrary, he tried to understand Marx under neoclassical light. Alejandro: Yes, but Morishima was a curious figure who both embraced general equilibium theory (in fact, maintaining that Marx had anticipated Walras!) and was influenced by classical theory. Perhaps an explanation for this is to be found in his apparant belief in economics as a science in which advances are brought about through an evolutionary process. The more specific context seems to be a dissatisfaction with the divisions that existed among Japanese economists. Thus, he complained (in the 'Introduction' to _Marx's Economics_) that the two economics associations -- one for Marxian economists and one for non-Marxists -- have never had any "fruitful conversation between them": "they are at daggers and describe each other as a society for reactionaries and a society for economists with lower I.Q.s." This made me, upon re-reading it, laugh. I was reminded of Rodney King's famous rhetorical question: "Why can we all just get along?". The implicit belief behind his book seems to be that if he can show the contribution to thought of Marx in marginalist terms then economists will appreciate and understand each other better. If he believed that, it was a naive belief, imo. It is unclear to me how rigorously studied Marx. He gives Okishio a lot of credit for his understanding: "With much help from Professor Okishio's books ...I had gathered almost all the material for this book in September, 1968" (Ibid, 'Preface', pp. vii- viii). He also thanks Joan Robinson. Morishima's writings on Marx seemed to have been welcomed at the time that they were first published by many Marxians. Perhaps one explanation for that was that in the context of the period _any_ sympathetic critique of Marx whether it was written by Morishima or someone like William J. Baumol was welcomed ... by some. (I am recalling the reception to which Baumol's reply to Samuelson in the _Journal of Economic Literature_ received.) In any case, Morishima and the 'Fundamental Marxian Theorem' have influenced some diverse traditions in Marxian theory. Obviously, he strongly influenced Analytical Marxism and Rational Choice Marxism, most notably John Roemer but also OPE-L member Gil Skillman. [btw, what has become of Analytical Marxism? What are they writing about now? ] Yet -- after pulling some volumes from one of my bookcases -- I can see that many others were influenced as well, e.g. Arun Bose, Gilbert Abraham-Frois & Edmond Berrebi, George Catephores, Karl Kuhne. [NB: in almost 10 years of discussion we have hardly ever discussed this latter group of scholars. What is the reason for that? Aren't their writings worth discussing and evaluating?] One wonders to what extent his goal of getting mainstream economics to take Marx (and Marxians) seriously has succeeded. More successful, it seems, was his attempt to get more Marxians to take mainstream theory seriously and attempt a 'merge' whereby the 'advances' of mainstream thought would be incorporated into Marxian theory. While Morishima didn't originate these theories, I think he also has to be given credit ... or blame ... for perpetuating and popularizing *dualism* and *simultaneism* in Marxian theory. In the conclusion of his book, he seeks not to re-cast Marx's theory as marginalism but to bring it up to date with the "von Neumann Revolution." While Alejandro is right to suggest that Morishima understood Marx "under neoclassical light", he also attempted to understand Marx under (modern) classical light. But, are these two influences -- Von Neumann and classical theory and Walras and GET -- consistently married in the writings of Morishima? What do you -- and others think on the list, believe are the positive contributions that Morishima made to the study of political economy? Negative contributions? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 28 2005 - 00:00:02 EST