[OPE-L:6509] RE: * poll: who has advanced political economy since Marx? *

From: mongiovg (mongiovg@stjohns.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 00:12:17 EST

Stimulating question, Jerry.

I would have to say Sraffa (surprise!), mainly for showing that the classical 
P.E. tradition running through Ricardo to Marx is robust: i.e. its fundamental 
insights regarding value and distribution hold up when the problematic labor 
value analysis is discarded.  He also pointed the way to a critique of the 
marginalist theory that displaced classical and Marxian P.E.

The contribution was both positive and critical: he gave us a reason to stick 
with classical P.E. (the theory holds up) and a reason to ditch neoclassical 
theory (it DOESN'T hold up).  I would also include Pierangelo Gargnani, who 
carried forward the critique implicit in Production of Commodities, and who 
has cast important light on what Marx and the classicals were getting at.

I find it difficult to think of many other post-Marx figures whose 
contributions have been of comparable importance -- that is, comparable to the 
achievements of Curie, Crick, Rutherford et al. in physics and chemistry. 
Baran and Sweezy (separately and together) might qualify for their work on 
monopoly capital; and Kalecki of course shouldn't be ignored.

>===== Original Message From "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> =====
>In [6501] Paul Z quoted from Engels 'Preface' to Volume 2 and asked:
>> Did Lavosier 'build' on phlogistic chemistry?  I don't think so.
>Agreed, but all would agree that chemistry advanced scientifically
>after Lavoisier and that subsequent advances in chemistry built upon
>the pioneering work of Lavoisier and others. Some of those who
>advanced the fields of chemistry  and what would become physics
>included Berthollet, Dalton, Gay-Lussac, Avogadro, Davy,
>Berzelius, Mendelejeff, Bunsen, Raleigh, Ramsey, Arrhenius,
>Bequerel,  M&P Curie, Rutherford, Thomson, Wilson, Einstein,
>Fischer, WA & WL Bragg, H Moseley (any relation?), Wohler,
>Fermi, Pauling, Sanger, Seaborg, Crick and many others.  Isn't
>this a characteristic of  *any*  science  -- that it continually advances
>and builds upon what has already been learned and in some cases
>rejects false understandings (as did Lavosier)?
>All would agree *in principle*  that our scientific understanding of
>capitalism was not buried with Marx,
>* and what were their contributions to that understanding that
>   weren't already IN Marx's writings?
>*  Also: what contributions to our understanding of that
>    subject matter  concerned something  *other than* attempting
>    to develop our understanding of how capitalism has
>    changed and developed since Marx's time?
>* Also: is there *any* major part of Marx's theory that the
>   development of subsequent thought shows needs to be
>   modified or rejected?
>If Marxism is a science then all of these questions should
>be able to be answered -- even if our answers are different.
>In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EST