Hans Despain, a PhD student at Utah (not to be confused with our own Hans
Ehrbar), posted the following to another list. As you will see, it
concerns a symposium on Marx in the Spring, 1995 issue of _HOPE_.
A couple of questions:
(1) How would you evaluate the arguments advanced by Anthony Brewer and
others in this symposium?
(2) Moving beyond the symposium, what are the reasons why many (it seems
like, e.g. Alain Lipietz, Willi Semmler) _former_ Marxist economists
no longer consider themselves to be Marxist?
In Solidarity, Jerry
==========================================================================
From: hans despain <HANS.DESPAIN@m.cc.utah.edu>
<snip> I was interested in asking if anyone else had seen the
minisymposium in History of Political Economy (spring 1995 v.
27[1]:107-206), titled "Locating Marx after the Fall".
The Editor's Introduction say the "minisymposium was organized around the
question 'with Marxian economics in disarray as a touchstone for actual
economies (in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, etc.), is it now
time for historians of economics to reclaim their interest in Karl Marx'"
(Weintraub:109).
Anthony Brewer provided a discussion in the form of a critic of the place
of Marx in the history of economic thought and his contribution to
economic theory, titled "A Minor Post-Ricardian? Marx as an Economist"
(Brewer:111-45); which nine Marxian economists responded to (mostly in
defense of Marx).
Brewer's theme is that the neglect of Marx in the history of economic
thought is "his work simply did not seem worth discussing" (113). He
goes on to deconstruct Marx reducing him to a "minor" Classical thinker.
Maybe of more interest (to discuss) is the nine responses to Brewer by
John Elliot, Duncan Foley, Samuel Hollander, M. C. Howard, J. E. King,
Takashi Negishi, Alessandro Roncaglia, Margaret Schabas, and Ian Steedman.
would anyone be interested in discussing this?
hans d.