(OPE-L) Re: Which label: neo-Ricardian, surplus approach, or linear production theory?

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 08:30:27 EST

Rakesh wrote:

> There is no other reason for academic departments to subsidize its
> research: most economists blithely ignore the capital critiques and
> governments are not seeking left post-Keynesian advisors. The
> critique has gone from one of economic theory to a counter critique of
> Marxian theory.

Three responses:

1) Surplus approach economists, like all heterodox economists,
have been systematically discriminated against by the hegemonic
marginalists. We should be trying to dialogue with these economists,
and seek out areas of agreement, rather than referring to them as
"tools" of the capitalist class.

2) Surplus approach economists, and other heterodox economists,
have shown relatively little _recent_ concern about critiquing Marx.
Ian Steedman, for example, moved on to other topics (like
international trade theory) _decades_ ago.

3) Marxists have spent far more intellectual energy (to the point of
obsession!) responding to the critiques of Marx rather than
attempting to advance political economy.  Consequently, Marxists
are the ones who have gone from a focus on political-economic theory
and capitalism (e.g. Grossmann's focus) to a counter-critique of
Steedman, Okishio, et. al.  So, I think your criticism of linear
production theorists is better directed at Marxists!

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 04 2003 - 00:00:00 EST