[OPE-L:6346] Re: Re: Re: Re: recent science a

From: Alejandro Ramos (aramos@btl.net)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 11:40:10 EST

Re Jerry's 6345:

>Re Ale's [6344]:
>> 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?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST