[OPE-L:7218] Re: Re: Re: Re: fundamentalism

From: dashyaf@easynet.co.uk
Date: Sun May 19 2002 - 08:54:24 EDT


I am not a Keynesian, neither was Mattick. The notion of a long-term or 
short-term Keynesian is absurd. I argued a Marxist critique of  the 
revisionist theories that were around at the time in the early 1970s. In 
other words for me theory is developed within a specific context. Those who 
we criticised at the time have gone on, in the main, along different paths. 
They do not interest me any more. There are many issues that need debating 
today and I try and make some contribution to such discussions when they 
are concerned with matters that affect the building of a new revolutionary 

For the record we attempted to give a Marxist explanation of inflation not 
a monetarist one - ours related to the tendency of the rate of profit to 
fall. Monetarist do not tend to argue along such lines. Finally we 
discussed the importance of capital saving innovation and showed its limits 
within the capitalist system. It was one small point among many and needed 
dealing with at the time because of the many crude attempts to undermine 
Marx. Our main criticism of the critics was they didn't understand the 
nature or substance of capital. I think our argument was correct.

I do not continue to discuss such questions because I find such disputes 
never really go anywhere and, as we frequently see in some of the OPE-L 
debates, eventually the disputants agree to differ etc. The real test of 
the truth or objectivity of a theory is a practical question etc... That is 
my position and I believe it is a fruitful approach.

I am replying to you so as not to be accused of ignoring criticism, and to 
be comradely,  but I have to say that I have no intention of continuing 
further along the lines you propose.

David Yaffe

At 14:18 16/05/02 -0700, you wrote:
>I may well agree with your count-criticism of Fine, but I don't see what 
>is so troubling here.
>Didn't you agree with Mattick that Keynesian full employment policies 
>could in fact be adopted in the short term as Fine seems to suggest, 
>though they would compound the problem of profitability in the long term? 
>And in this sense didn't both you and Mattick differ from an extreme 
>Robert Lucas like position that Keynesian policies may not even work in 
>the short term? So why is it wrong to say that you were a (short term) 
>Keynesian? It's not a horrible reading of Mattick Sr in my opinion.
>Moreover, is there no overlap between your theory of inflation and the 
>monetarist one? I do not remember your working out a detailed critique of 
>the monetarist one--Pilling has a few pages in Crisis of Keynesian 
>Economics against Friedman.  It does seem that it would be productive to 
>hash these issues out. That is, in saying that your view of inflation is 
>close to the monetarist one, aren't you being goaded on to differeniate 
>your own view from that one? Again I may well agree with your reply here, 
>but there seems no reason to continue the debate with Fine who is 
>obviously a very serious, knowledgeable and productive person.
>And what is wrong with Fine arguing that like Ricardo you do not give full 
>weight to the possibility of capital saving innovation in relieving upward 
>pressure on the OCC? Again this problem of capital saving innovation as a 
>counter-tendency is in fact an important and very difficult problem, and 
>does seem to have been downplayed by Ricardo. So what is wrong in saying 
>that you are neo Ricardian here in not giving what he considers to be due 
>weight to this problem--Fine obviously does not mean Sraffian here but neo 
>Again I am not saying that Fine has delivered a decisive critique, but 
>there seems to me no reason to close off the debate on the basis of what 
>he has written.
>Were you not a short term Keynesian? How is your theory of inflation 
>different than the monetarist one? Are you not Ricardian in not giving 
>capital saving innovation its due?
>All the best, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT