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

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 07:42:03 EST

Rakesh wrote:

> And still the name Steedman only means the critique of Marx to
> most people, no?

Most people? No.  Most people have never heard of Ian
Steedman.  Those who have tend to be heterodox economists
(a small minority even within the economics profession) or (mostly
graduate) heterodox-leaning economics students.  Steedman's
name only is associated with a critique of Marx for an exceptionally
small number of people internationally who are students and
scholars of Marx.  Steedman and Okishio are _Marxian_

> At any rate,
> Documenting the limits up against which Scandinavian social
> democracy came, Moschonas (2002)<snip, JL>

I don't see the relevance of the rest of your post.  You seem to be
asserting that surplus approach theorists are social democratic.
This is an unwarranted assertion.  While I have no doubt that some
surplus approach theorists are social democratic, others consider
themselves to be revolutionaries.  E.g. in the 1970's, several of
the leading (as they were called then) Neo-Ricardians in the UK
were members of the International Marxist Group (IMG). In that
same (Trotskyist) political group, Alan Freeman and other
decidedly non-social democratic theorists were members (the
IMG also was affiliated with the United Secretariat of the Fourth
International, one of the leaders of which was the late Ernest
Mandel).  There is no evidence that I am aware of which suggests
that the 'Neo-Ricardian' IMG members advocated a different
political programme from the party majority.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 05 2003 - 00:00:01 EST