I think Duncan Foley was NOT merely suggesting that we need to have dialogue and interchange with mainstream social science. I think he was saying that he
considered it a bad idea to develop Marxian theory by going back, rediscovering Marx, and developing theory on the basis of and in relation to Marx's oeuvres.
He indicated that he thought our "intuition" should suffice to guide us.
Whatever the advantages of such an approach may be--I will not argue the question here--the historical record shows clearly that this approach has served to
confuse people, "experts included," as to the ideas, concepts, categories, of
Marx's work, its purposes, the extent to which and the sense in which it is
"incomplete," etc. Nothing in _Capital_ will shed much light on fluctuations
in prices on the spot market for wheat, but does that make _Capital_ incomplete? Do we need a "Marxian alternative" to neoclassical economics, offering
answers to all of ITS questions? Equally importantly, can such a project be
said to be a "development" or "completion" of _Capital_?
Ciao--Andrew