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

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 09:46:44 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_

Of those North American economists who know of work on a Sraffian
linear algebra basis, do most know about the work on trade (Steedman)
or the critique of neoclassical capital theory or (through Samuelson
and others) the critique of Marx? I would say that to the extent that
the Sraffian work has been recognized among economists--and I am not
saying that there has been  much recognition--it is only in the last
area. And Sraffa himself was known to mumble about how at least his
work does not suffer from that grave and devastating transformation

>  > 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.

I don' think so. The exception is a Sweezy. People like Bhaduri and
Pollin are typical.

>   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).

I would imagine that these theorists were not in fact surplus
approach thinkers but were interested in Sraffian work only insofar
as it was a immanent critique of neo classical economics, not a
critique of Marx.

But you seem to be denying that there are important contradictions
between Marxian theory and Sraffian theory. You want everyone to get
along and cooperate and be nice to each other. This is insidious, the
Sraffian inspired critique of Marx has been vituperative--or did you
forget? The matter of contradiction cannot be wished away.


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