[OPE-L:5732] Re: Re: Re: why are we on this list?

From: glevy@pratt.edu
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 13:02:13 EDT

Re Rakesh's [5728]:

> <snip,JL>, but Jerry  you refuse to acknowledge that it is obvious
> that Gil, Steve and Ajit think of value theoretic marxists as
> charlatans who need to be taken out root and branch. 

Well ... I don't think that they want value-theoretic Marxists
"to be taken out" [!] "root and branch."  Like advocates of the 
TSSI they have strong convictions about the merit of their own
perspective(s) and the problems with other perspectives.

> I suppose this
> seething contempt has not been obvious to you over six years of this
> list.

Seething contempt? Certainly not from Gil and Steve. 

> These supposed logical problems have not been the grounds for 
> rooting marxist political economy, based on Marx's Capital, from 
> the academy?

No, I don't believe it has been the main grounds. Indeed, I don't
think that the supposed inconsistency of Marx's theory comes up
very often when meainstream economists discuss Marx and Marxists. 
Rather, the criticism (i.e. dismissal) that is repeated over and
over again concerns the alleged irrelevance of Marxism for 
contemporary capitalism and 'the death of communism'.  

> Sure they have a similar problem; there are only so many so called
> radicals you need to root marxism out of the academy. But we have a
> different estimation of what the true function of these other
> heterodox traditions is. 

Yes, we do.  You weren't around at the time, so you don't recall,
but there are a lot of Post-Keynesians who put their careers on the
line when they came out in support of the UK Cambridge position in 
the Cambridge Controversies. Even now *at best* they are viewed as
'eccentrics' by neo-neo-classical economists. Just like the nnc's
view Marxists. 

> Marx carried out an extensive critique of
> other socialisms. And the neoricardian postkeynesian theory is the
> underpinning for a form of state socialism which would have been
> subject to massive critique by Marx.

"State socialism?"  
Of course, Marx would have subjected other radical perspectives to
critique. Similarly, we should subject those same perspectives to
critique and _vice versa_. 

> >   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
> >philosophy.
> Well they will surely find mentors and networks.

Will they? I'm not convined.

> Again I think it's astonishing that you and others won't admit that
> the bourgeoisification of any radical journal is always a live
> threat, always in the process of almost completing itself. But we
> just have a different sense of the constraints on scholarship.

Of course, it *can* happen. Yet, simply because it is a possibility
does not mean in this (or other) cases that it necessarily *has*
happened. Should we just *assume*, without evidence, that there
has been discrinmination against individuals based on their 
theoretical perspective? Are these journals to be judged guilty 
simply because they are accused of a crime?

> I think Steve's seething contempt turned Alan F off, but I hope that
> he speaks for himself at some point.

I think that Alan's time constraint was the reason.

> Carchedi left this list very early.

For entirely personal reasons.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT