[OPE-L:5734] Re: why are we on this list?

From: glevy@pratt.edu
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 15:32:33 EDT

---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:38:51 -0700

>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."

Jerry, please note how Steve characterizes value theoretic marxists
in his debunking book. we are not treated any more sympathetically
than i treated the hare krishnas.

>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.

it comes up in the histories of economic thought which I have read.

>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'.

but economics requires technical criticisms.

>>  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.

that seems just to have been a tempest in the teapot--some attempt to
get economics to speak to the radical times by returning to questions
of distribution. I guess you are impressed by this, but we know what
marx thought of JS Mill's focus on the distributional problems of

>  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 draw my conclusions from the absence of a reply to the counter-criticisms.

Yours, Rakesh

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