Re: [OPE] Are Regulation Theorists Marxists?

Hi all,

I agree with Ian on this issue, which is just a
question of conceptual clarity. There are many
interpretations of Marx, but the LTV - meaning
that the value of goods ultimately - for
reproducible goods - depend on labour time is
absolutely basic. Almost all important insights
of Marx depend on the LTV-basis.

Either you are without a value theory - which is
completely un-Marxian - or you have a "revealed
preference" theory - a marginalist one - which is
clearly anti-Marxian. Tertium non datur.

In the case of the regulation school I think you
would find all shades, LTV'ers, un-decided, and
"utilitists". Mostly it is a non-issue for them = an un-Marxian attitude.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the
transformation problem, the heterogeneous labour
problem, productive and unproductive labour,
commodity money vs. fiat money etc. That is all
un-resolved questions of the Marxian LTV-paradigm.

IMO intellectual honesty demands that non-LTV
economist, use terms like "Marx-inspired",
"building on some of Marx insights" - like
Schumpeter, Robinson et al - both excellent
economists, inspiring/challenging to read - but not Marxist economists.

The same goes for economist working inside a
static, linear algebra paradigm. Marx is
fundamentally dynamic, despite the fact that he
maybe with hindsight sometimes tried to prove his
point in the stiff (not entirely static) theoretical framework of Ricardo.

My two cents

Anders

Regards
Anders

At 20:34 19.08.2009, you wrote:
>Hi DGöçmen , I think there are Marxist
>theories and not only one. I
>recall David Gordon (important theorist of
>Social Structure of Accumulation School SSA,
>passed away some years ago) asserting: "I am
>Marxist and I am not willing to discuss it".
>SSA and French Regulation School are eclectic:
>Marx+Keynes+Institutionalism (Veblen).
>In my view eclecticism is contradictory; however
>I think that is necessary to be respectful with
>eclectic Marxisms (like Regulation Schools).
>I think, non-eclectic Marxism is the right one
>but it do not imply that I reject Regulation
>School at all. On the contrary I am sure that non-eclectic Marxism
>should learn from SSA and French Regulation Schools.
>In short, I think that Regulation theories are
>Marxist if they accept such adjective.
>
>
>saludos
>Alejandro Valle Baeza
>
>
>DGöçmen wrote:
>>Dear All,
>>can the regulation theories classified as
>>Marxist, if yes, in what sense, and if not why?
>>Is there a Marxist critique of regulation
>>theories that takes into account the varity whitin the regulation school?
>>Thanks for your replies and references in advance.
>>
>>D.Göçmen
>>http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/
>>
>>D.Göçmen
>>http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>ope mailing list
>>ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ope mailing list
>ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Aug 19 16:24:47 2009