[OPE-L:6670] Hayak and Strachley (was 'The Good Lord?)

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 02:51:34 EST

Re Allin's [6667] and Rakesh's [6668]:

>From [6667]:
> The notion that Hayek has a valuable contribution to make on this (let
> alone, more valuable than Keynes's) seems to me fashionable nonsense.

>From [6668]: 
 > Allin, did you make 
>  any use of John Strachey's The Nature of Capitalist Crisis, which 
> seems to include the first Marxist critique of Hayek's cycle theory? 

Interesting. The "fashionable nonsense"  reaction seems to be 
Rosdolsky's evaluation of Strachley (_The Making of Marx's
Capital_, pp. 304-305).   As I'm sure Rakesh is aware of, 
Blake's evaluation of Strachley is mixed: on the one hand 2 of 
his works [_Nature of Capitalist Crisis_ and _Theory and
Practice of Socialism_]  are said to be "helpful" but on the
other hand they are damned: "They lack philosophical content,
and in this they are not much superior to such documents as
Leontiev" [reference to Leontiev's _Political Economy_] (Blake,
p. 675).

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST