Re: (OPE-L) Robinson and Marx

From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 13:12:15 EST

I agree that the criticism of capital as an aggregate notion has been
in fact superseded by the development in GET, and added that these
development were actually self-destructive to GET.

I think that the book on Marx, though interesting, gave a one-sided,
partial and wrong criticism of Marx.

I am not making an assessment of the overall contribution of JR to
economic thought.

Do you think somebody on the list have doubts that I am in favour of
an HETERODOX reading of Marx?

I think that we should relax a bit ...


At 12:48 -0500 24-11-2004, Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote:
>  >>> In fact, I agree with very much of what is written here - except for
>some adjective which add nothing to content: insidious, for example.
>But the substance is right.  <<<
>What are you saying?  You seem to be agreeing  with him that
>her critique of marginal productivity theory "certainly does not compensate
>for her [...] attempt to vanquish [...] Marx by making him appear as a
>proto Keynesian."  This is an unbelievably narrow assessment of
>the contribution of Robinson to economic theory -- especially the
>_critique_ of economic theory.   Just think of all of the other
>that she made to theory!  That she should have taken a critical standpoint
>towards Marx -- something that we should _all_ do, Marxists
>_especially_ --  is not cause for asserting that on balance she made
>a negative contribution to thought.
>In solidarity, Jerry


Riccardo Bellofiore
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
"Hyman P. Minsky"
UniversitÓ di Bergamo
Via dei Caniana 2
I-24127 Bergamo, Italy
direct    +39-035-2052545
secretary +39-035 2052501
fax:      +39 035 2052549

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 25 2004 - 00:00:01 EST