Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 08:14:32 EDT
[Ranganayakamma wrote:] > Can we refer to Marx's economic analysis as Marxist Political > Economy since the subheading of Marx's 'Capital' is 'A critique > of Political Economy'? > Is it not necessary to call Marx's theory of economics with a different name? Ranga and Michael H, Three very brief responses to your questions and comments: 1. I agree with the thrust of Simon's comments in the following post: < http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/0204/0180.html > 2. Whatever you call the group of people working and/or writing in this area of specialization (and, yes, it has indeed become an area of specialization), there will be problems with the name. If either of you think you have a better name to describe this group, let us know and we can discuss it. 3. I am not completely unsympathetic to your remarks about the importance of 'critique of political economy.' I think it's true that for most of the XXth Century, most Marxists did not recognize or understated the importance of critique of political economy to Marx's project in _Capital_. Yet, I think that many now bend the stick too far in the opposite direction. The purpose or aim of _Capital_ was not _just_ a critique of political economy. Marx, after all, didn't say that "the ultimate aim of his work is to critique political economy and thereby expose its mystifications and fetishizations." Instead, he claimed that "it is the ultimate aim of this work to reveal the economic law of motion of modern society." In solidarity, Jerry PS: would anyone care to address one or more of the "unresolved issues" in Simon's post referred to above?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 07 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT