[OPE-L:5762] RE: heterodox theories of value

From: A.B.Trigg@open.ac.uk
Date: Sun Jun 03 2001 - 12:27:23 EDT

What about Pasinetti - a Post Keynesian that uses the labour theory of

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Gerald_A_Levy [SMTP:Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com]
> Sent:	03 June 2001 07:24
> To:	ope-l
> Subject:	[OPE-L:5760] heterodox theories of value
> 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