[OPE-L:5760] heterodox theories of value

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Sun Jun 03 2001 - 10:24:10 EDT

Re Steve K's [5759]:

  > In other words, like the majority of non-orthodox economists, they =
have long abandoned any explicit reliance on Marx because they don't =
want to be tainted with the brush of the labour theory of value. <

  Yes, there are political implications of what you
  call the LTV that they perhaps are not ready for.
  So it has been since the 'marginalist (counter-)
  revolution' against the political implications of cpe
  and the Ricardian socialists.

  Yet, what theory of value do these heterodox
  economists adhere to? Of course, surplus
  approach economists (like Gary and Ajit) have
  a theory of value. But, what about the rest of
  them?  What, for example, is the 'Post-
  Keynesian'   (or Post-Kaleckian) theory of value?
  E.g. what theory of value does 'PD' advocate on
  PKT?  Have they -- yet -- thoroughly and
  completely abandoned the marginalist dogma
  including the marginal utility theory of value?
  Or do they just sidestep the whole issue (and
  thereby one of the fundamental issues of political-
  economic theory) by not explicitly putting
  forward a theory of value that they advocate (so
  that it can then be subject to critique)?   If
  that is the case, then perhaps we should view
  them as a (a-theoretical) neo-institutionalist
  (unprincipled) combination which has a clearer
  idea about what they reject than what they accept?  If so, isn't that =
just plain ... bunk?

  In solidarity, Jerry

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