From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Sun Sep 25 2005 - 09:12:21 EDT
I was in Washington, D.C. yesterday engaging in some praxis at a national anti-war demonstration and was only able to read this exchange between Michael L and Rakesh late last night. If anyone on the list *other than Rakesh* wants me to respond to the content of the following, then I will be happy to do so. In solidarity, Jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] On inevitability > At 6:46 PM -0700 9/24/05, michael a. lebowitz wrote: > >At 16:14 23/09/2005, Rakesh wrote: > > > >>But this list seems intent on pursuing the discussion of Sraffa and > >>economics rather than Marx. That was inevitable once an economist > >>demanded that he remain in charge forever. > >> > >>Rakesh > > > > Without in any way granting the premise that any economist > >made such a demand (something you have raised ad nauseam on this list > >but without getting any support that I am aware of), > > Yes that you are aware of. Moreover, as I noted, several people > already quit the list over the question of moderation. So I am not > sure what you mean by support. And I still have not raised > publically the people whom our moderator rejected for admission. > That is, before he had to justify his decisions to someone else. > Which (an advisory committee) was imposed on him because other people > were threatening to leave. > > > > how does having > >an economist as (non-monitoring) moderator make it 'inevitable' that > >this list pursues 'the discussion of Sraffa and economics rather than > >Marx'? > > This is a list run by an economist who has chosen economists to > advise him. There are few or no geographers, political scientists, > environmental scientists, sociologists and historians on this list. > > Seriously how are we going to complete Marx's critique with that list > composition? Especially since the outsiders are almost entirely > philosophers. > > Moreover, it is economists who think the list should be consumed with > attempts to annihilate Marx's critique, not complete it. > > So we spoke for years about Marx's mistakes in chapter 5. > > And we have spoken ad nauseaum about dispensability of value theory > in light of the surplus approach. > > Yet despite the hubris and scientism of the Sraffians and their > sympatheizers, it is clear that they have no idea what Marx was > trying to do. > > Take the main questions of chapter one of Capital. > > 1. Why are commodities considered to have the property of value? > 2. What kind of property is value? > 3. Why is value expressed in the form which it does take in bourgeois society? > > These seem to me the most important questions that Marx attempts to > answer in the first part of Capital; he does not seem to be offering > a value theoretic explanation for exchange ratios, which even here he > recognizes are not always perfectly proportional to value though Marx > rightly insists that prices are a function of value. > > The Sraffians do not even understand the questions that Marx was > posing, much less his answers. Yet they think they have successfully > critiqued him. > > > I have read quite a bit of the secondary literature, and it seems to > me undeniable that the best answers ever given to these questions > were Marx's own. One other serious effort to answer these three > questions seems to me to have been William J Blake's in Elements of > Marxian Economic Theory and Its Criticism, 1939. I.I. Rubin simply > did not handle the third question well. Sweezy's textbook was > altogether superficial on these questions, but it did so much to make > the transformation problem the burning question. > > For the economists it does nothing for the scientific reputation of > Marx to underline that two people who have at least understood Marx's > questions and his answers are William J Blake and Ranganayakamma. > > It may be embarrassing company for those with scientistic pretensions > to keep. Note David Laibman's review of Ranganayakamma. > > But the embarrassing thing is the economists' understanding of Marx. > There are a few exceptions of course. Very few. > > Yours, Rakesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I'm missing something. > > michael > > > >--------------------- > >Michael A. Lebowitz > >Professor Emeritus > >Economics Department > >Simon Fraser University > >Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 > >Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 > >Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 26 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT