[OPE-L:4510] Re: Marxist economists

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sun Nov 12 2000 - 22:27:48 EST

Alejandro Ramos <aramos@btl.net> said, on 11/12/00:

RE: 4508

>>"A History of Marxian Economics" by Howard and King (a survey I don't 
>>much care for, but it surely leads one to lots of sources).

>This is one of the most biased books I have seen in my life. Frankly, I
>envy their resources availability but unfortunately the authors wasted
>them. I think you have mentioned their treatment of Rosa Luxemburg's

Sadly, I have to agree with you.  Author after author they evaluate is not
"good enough" for them.


>My concern is whether or not is possible to
>get the scientific content of Marx's work in order to understand
>capitalism. From the beginning it has been contended that it has no
>scientific content at all because Marx's work is logically flawed.
>Initially only bourgeois economists said that. Today, a great deal of
>marxist economists (say, Howard & King!) agree with this, *uncritically*
>accepting all the arguments put forward by the right.

[Also, RE: 4509: "I only wanted to point out that the task is very 
difficult and that marxist economist have made it even more difficult."]

I agree, as long as you are not holding EVERY "marxist economist"


>>Concerning intra-Marxist relations, Rakesh has a point that ought to be
>>examined, maybe within our individual thoughts (I'm almost tempted to use
>>the expression "self-criticism" but I don't think this is a useful
>>formulation in an internet interchange).

>Why? I don't understand your point here. I do think that we should exert
>a permanent "self criticism" and I try to do that, perhaps unsuccesfully!
>These exchanges are very useful in this direction because allow one to
>work hard on the issues.

>>I don't expect much change,
>>however, as we as individuals are mostly whom we are.

>Please, explain!

Alejandro, I wasn't thinking of you or specific theoretical issues, but
Rakesh's remark "Marxist economics seems to suffer from academic dogmatism
and  hierarchy as any other discipline. I don't see any point in denying
this even if Marxist economists are marginalized by their apologist
colleagues. For which they have my sympathy."  I was saying that for him
to exactly "explain" that feeling and for others to respond one way or
another would require a kind gestalt setting which we don't have available
on the internet. That doesn't make Rakesh's obseravtion any less

Paul Z.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST