[OPE-L:5725] Re: why are we on this list?

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 08:28:59 EDT

Re Rakesh's [5712]:

> Is it funny to ridicule someone who thinks Marx > got basically right?

All those who reject _all_ authority figures should
agree that no one should be immune from being
the 'target' of humorous remarks. (In this sense,
I think there is something profoundly anti-
authoritarian about "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
and "Saturday Night Live".)  This doesn't mean,
though, that _anything_ -- including racist and
sexist remarks -- should be considered to be
'funny' ... but that has never been an issue on
this list.

> Why is that funny when we have had to pay--for > example, we marxists
> don't have mentors at many of the top schools,
> certainly not mentors
> who could help us get jobs (take for example
> Harvard, Princeton and
> Stanford--Duncan left here years ago).

This has, imo, very little -- if anything -- to do
with critiques of Marx that charge logical
inconsistency. Indeed, _all_ heterodox economists
have a similar problem (in all but a few select
schools.) I.e. _anyone_ who adheres to a
perspective that is not marginalist is considered
to be an 'outsider'.  Even _for marginalists_, they
might have problems getting jobs if they specialize
in certain 'arcane' areas -- especially history of
economic thought, economic history, or economic

> I guess it's funny that we
> seem as ridiculous as legless black knights,

Yes, I thought that funny.

> but if scientific
> criticism were allowed in political economy, i
> think these marx  critics could easily be proven
> to be weak and defenseless. they
> criticize and ridicule from within the protected
> confines of the bourgeois academy.

So 'scientific criticism' is not allowed in political
economy?  There are certainly a bunch of
journals, and radical publishing houses, that
might be willing to publish such 'scientific
criticism' though.  Thus, it _is_ allowed (in
at least some forums)  ... if  one actually has
'scientific criticism'.
> it didn't lead to much in the engagements with
> Freeman on this list.

So Steve is to blame if Alan doesn't want to, or
have time to, engage him in a discussion on
non-linear dynamics, etc.?

> Wait! Mongiovi wrote a long critique of TSS
> which in many ways came
> down to the methodology of comparative statics. > He is trying to bury  a
rival school; I think he
> should defend his critique openly in
> debate with Kliman, Freeman, Ernst or others.

He _did_ defend his critique openly (and the fur
was flying! ... although Gary remained calm
throughout) at the IWGVT this Spring.  As for
OPE-L, no one from a TSS perspective has
yet challenged him on that critique on-list ...
even though (of course!) that is their right.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:27 EDT