Re: (OPE-L) Robinson and Marx

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 14:56:08 EST

At 7:26 PM +0100 11/24/04, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote:
>I agree too, Paul. In fact, as some of my posts testify, I go even
>further, I think taht some point of this tradition must be included
>critically in a renewed Marxism. My point was about what happened
>after the mid 70s. I think Neoclassical mounted an efffective
>reaction. I guess that the same Robinson was not very happy with a
>criticism of Neoclassicism which stopped at the critique of
>neoclassical capital theory, and insisted that we should go towards
>an approach which included time and history in an essential way. Does
>this mean that we have to accept the idea that value is just
>metaphysics? At the same time, I accept as substantially true her
>criticism of the falling rate of profits.

But then why try to pass off this tradition (or Roemer's) as a
renewed Marxism? This I don't understand. Perhaps we need to talk in
Lakatosian terms about the hard core? Marxism is not a church, so it
cannot be a broad church either.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 26 2004 - 00:00:02 EST