Re Jerry's 6345: >Re Ale's : > >> do you *really* believe that capitalism can be "systematically" >> understood building on general equilibrium theory and marginalism? > >No, I don't. My point was that this is more their 'project' rather >than interpreting Marx. I see. What I don't see is a discussion on the possible methodological flaws (in terms of understanding capitalism, not only of interpreting Marx) of such position. On the contrary, the project is offered as a superior way of understanding this society. >> 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? > >If GET was all that AM was about, I'd agree with you. But, I wouldn't by any means >dismiss attempts to comprehend contemporary economic relations using game-theoretic >strategic models, would you? This is a too general question. In ope-l I have read Gil in a more "Marx interpretation" mood --specifically, I'm refering to his proposal o abandon what he calls "labor values" or perhast LTV, etc. (see below) >I would particularly like to hear more about that perspective when an advocate of it >(Gil) claims that it his perspective is rooted in historical materialism. > >> >> 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. > >Which 'adjectives' are you objecting to? "Copernican" and the like --remember e.g. Keynes's "Non Euclidian geometry"(?), etc. >>> However, I do remember Gil offering us his "Copernican" proposals > in a no so distant past. > >I don't remember that. Gil: did you ever claim to be a Copernican or >suggest that your perspectives are Copernican? I got a nice chunck right here: Gil in 4243 --Oct 23, 2000 (I'm not sure about the date): "...without needing to introduce an additional theoretical entity--commodity labor values--and analyze its possible connection to another entity--commodity prices---couldn't this be viewed as an advance in, rather than a rejection of, Marx's theoretical project, in something like the same way that Copernican cosmology represented an advance over its predecessor, in part because it dispensed with the cumbersome apparatus of Ptolemaic epicycles?" What do you think, Jerry? Are you ready to choose the rather modern, advanced and fashionable "Copernican" methods Gil offers us, or to loose being an old fashioned, "cumbersome" Ptolemaic Marxist, interested in the way people spent their labor-time (their life!) to get their living conditions? A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST