Re 6343: >The focus that Roemer and Gil have on Marx seems >to me to be secondary -- the main focus is on comprehending capitalism >in a systematic manner. Jerry, do you *really* believe that capitalism can be "systematically" understood building on general equilibrium theory and marginalism? General equilibrium is, as its founding father himself proclaimed, a Platonic creature. How can be this helpful to give us some light on the real, historical society we live in? I prefer to avoid any comment about whether or not such eclectic (or oxymoronic?) research programs (Marx+Say+Walras+Jevons or Pytagoras+Plato+Kant+Marx) can be considered "Marxist". Names are unimportant and everybody is, of course, free to choose (or to loose!) any name s/he likes. >> the Copernican world of John Roemer. > >As we saw last year, it is other Marxists -- some who are self-proclaimed >advocates of 'Marx's Marxism' -- who claim the title of being Copernicans. I think all these "adjectives" cannot contribute to the dialogue. However, I do remember Gil offering us his "Copernican" proposals in a no so distant past. A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST