Re: (OPE-L) Robinson and Marx

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 13:10:46 EST

> >>> 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.  <<<
> Riccardo,
> 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
> contributions
> 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

I agree with you, Jerry.  My own exit from neoclassical economics was
greatly contributed to by the Cambridge (UK) critique of neoclassical
capital theory and she was of course a major part of that.  Furthermore,
since I knew her personally a bit and got her to the ILO in the mid-70s --
which eventually resulted in her development book which the ILO refused to
publish because it was too radical, I know directly that she had a
wide-ranging impact on stimulating critical economics among many
economists and non-economists.

Joan Robinson is DEFINITELY the kind of economist with whom we need to
build alliances or we will be worth nothing except our own narcissism.


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