From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Wed Oct 24 2007 - 08:57:16 EDT
>>"THE WHIGGISH FOUNDATION OF MARXIAN AND SRAFFIAN ECONOMICS" >>If you are wondering about the meaning of "whiggish", see: >><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiggish_historiography> > But have you actually read that paper Jerry? I do not think it > confirms your prognosis that it is just getting worse and worse. > Kliman has a certain polemical style, but if you do not let yourself > be provoked by that, there is a lot of substantial arguments in that > paper, given the premiss that Marx was not an equilibrium theorist, > i.e. to judge him from a gen.eq. point of view is unfair, do not > grasp his methodological paradigm. Hi Anders: _His_ methodological paradigm is not the issue which I was alluding to: it is his representation of other Marxian and surplus approach perspectives that is at issue (again, recall the conclusion from the C&C reply by Mohun and Veneziani). Do you think there is a "Whiggish foundation" to basically all non-TSSI radical perspectives in political economy? Do you think that it is a foundational question for Marxian and Sraffian economics to (your words) "judge him (Marx) from a gen eq. point of view"? Since all but a handful of Marxians (in the Analytical and Rational Choice Marxism traditions) explicitly reject general equilibrium theory, this is a bit far-fetched, imo. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:20 EDT