[OPE-L:5716] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why are we on this list?

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Thu May 31 2001 - 23:57:01 EDT

>On Thu, 31 May 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
>>  in my opinion this is because marxians are powerless, and find that
>>  they have to defend themselves from charges of logical incoherence if
>>  they are to be considered respectable.
>I don't find that very convincing.  Sraffa's critique, for instance,
>was directed more at neoclassical economics than at Marxism, yet with
>the exception of a few "high theorists" who strove to dispute Sraffa's
>claims, most neoclassical economists just got on with the job
>regardless, extending and applying.

so Allin what's your point? marxists have been forced to respond to a 
critique which does not even apply to them while those who were the 
actual target are allowed to maintain their academic respectability 
while ignoring it (blaug however thinks a purely logical critique 
without any proven empirical relevance can and should be ignored, 
right)? since the mainstream economists don't find any positive worth 
in neo ricardianism, why do they keep them around other than to 
hassle marxists out of the academy--like Steve, Gil, Gary and Ajit 
are doing?
isn't this what Andrew's debate about the RRPE was all about? what i 
found amazing about that debate was that RRPE defenders just 
proclaimed their academic integrity, though honesty would require 
that the bourgeoisification of any radical journal is always a 
threat, always in the process of almost completing itself. How could 
it be otherwise? Is the academy going to stipend hundreds of 
revolutionary, not evolutionary, marxist economists just if they 
happen to score high enough on tests?

>OK, but discussing "historical specificity" at the highest pitch of
>philosophical abstraction is a far cry from actually getting specific
>about central banking, the world market, or anything.

Yes but at least they are not talking about whether marx was complete 
or incomplete in his break from the transhistoricism of political 
economy. That is, at least we have some discussion about completing 
Marx's project rather than roasting it.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:09 EDT