[OPE-L:4238] Re: Logic and illogic in defending Marx

From: glevy@pratt.edu
Date: Mon Oct 23 2000 - 11:09:05 EDT

Steve wrote in [OPE-L:4206]:

> Firstly, my plea for discussing other current issues--such as the Internet
> Bubble in the USA--was not a request for this list to abandon its
> theoretical foundation. It was more an observation that, if we did discuss
> such topics, our discussion would not in any meaningful way be informed by
> theories of Marxism--because we are still trying to work out the basic
> building blocks of such a theory.
> If I were discussing this topic on a post keynesian list, then I could use
> Basil Moore's theory of endogenous money, Minsky's theory of financial
> instability, Wynne Godley's work on social accounting matrices, Willi
> Semmler's work on credit cycles, my own extended-Goodwin model of chaotic
> interactions in finance, Andresen's model of stock markets... There are
> plenty of Post Keynesian building blocks for extended analysis of complex
> sub-systems of capitalism. 
> But what are Marxists able to contribute on this? Of course there are some
> components; but the vast majority of academic output by Marxists has been
> about ... the transformation problem...

Surely, you must know that this is an exaggeration. Even for those who have written about the TP, it only constitutes a fraction of their intellectual output. Indeed, I don't think there is any one member of this list whose main concern and output has been the TP (although, I could be mistaken).

As for the more concrete subject you suggest, are you not aware of the works by (among others) Makoto & Costas, Suzanne, Akira, former listmember Mino Carchedi, Robbie Guttmann, and Weber/Rigby? Surely, these represent significant works. Instead of denying their importance, perhaps it would be more useful to have a dialogue between the two traditions.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST