From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Sep 01 2005 - 10:04:21 EDT
Hi Jerry, Just wanted to pick up on a couple of points: (1) Sen as having 'command' of the philosophy and economics disciplines. Obviously there are many people well-versed in both disciplines - some on this list. The interesting point about Sen is that he is *eminent* in both disciplines. This is a pretty remarkable fact about Sen, possibly a unique one amongst contemporary academics, for all I know (very little). All the more remarkable when one recognises Sen's 'heterodox' side. Interesting to contrast Fine's appreciation for Sen with his withering criticisms of Stiglitz - Stiglitz, along with Bowles and co. and others are part of the 'E = MC squared' formula that Fine criticises, i.e. (mainstream) economics = market imperfections + methodological individualism (2) You also write: In _Capital_, capitalists -- to the extent to which they are "capital personified" and are assumed to wear character masks -- are essentially assumed to behave rationally in a manner consistent with the maximization of self-interest. Yet, I think that this -- *given the level(s) of concretion of _Capital_, i.e. of "capital-in-general"* -- was appropriate. If, however, we are focused on a much more concrete, historically contingent level where we are considering the behavior of individual capitalists and firms _then_ we have to allow for some other, additional motivation besides self-interest in the form of profit-maximizing effort. E.g. prestige. ---- I respond: I don't quite agree with how you have put this. I'd say capitalists act on self-interest at the level where we have just introduced many capitals in Vol III. We cannot really talk about self-interest, about the consciousness of capitalists, prior to that because we haven't introduced profit, and it is profit that fills the consciousness of the individual capitalist. On the other hand, your stated view does seem to fit the 'character mask' quote (in one of the prefaces to Capital Vol 1) better since why would Marx mention this in the preface to Volume I if it only applies to Cap Vol. 3? Many thanks Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 00:00:00 EDT