Next message: Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3957] Re: Critiquing exploitation"
Next message: Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3957] Re: Critiquing exploitation"
Next message: Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3957] Re: Critiquing exploitation"
Next message: Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3957] Re: Critiquing exploitation"
Previous message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:3955] Re: Critiquing exploitation"
Hi Steve:
Wasn't the Samuelson papers on the transformation problem an attempt to show
that exploitation is a not a useful theoretical concept, i.e., "it doesn't
matter we assume that capital hires labor or that labor hires capital."
peace, patrick
At 06:17 PM 1/9/97 -0800, you wrote:
>I have a graduate student who is writing a paper that includes a section
>where he argues why exploitation (capitalist) is bad. He was curious, and
>I couldn't help him much, whether there have been relatively recent (say,
>post WWII) sophisticated articles written by economists who have taken on
>the Marxian theory of unpaid labor. In other words, he's looking for the
>strongest case neoclassicals or others have made against Marxist theories
>of exploitation, as a normative or organizing concept.
>
>Can anyone help him and myself out with references and/or arguments? Or
>have neoclassicals basically ignored Marxist arguments after JB Clark?
>
>Steve C.
>
>
>***********************************************
>Stephen Cullenberg office: (909) 787-5037, ext. 1573
>Department of Economics fax: (909) 787-5685
>University of California Stephen.Cullenberg@ucr.edu
>Riverside, CA 92521
>
>
>
>