Re: [OPE-L] class theory

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 03:01:41 EDT

> We _already_ have _lots_ of
> history in the "Neo-Ricardian" - Marxian literature
> to show
> that it's not productive.   It also tends to be circular.
> For instance, in the
> 1980's Neo-Ricardianism, it was claimed,
> represented vulgar economic theory.
> Then, in a case of what goes
> around comes around, the TSSI wa accused of being
> a form
> of vulgar economics.

The published work in the 80's on value theory is generally of a
higher quality than what we get today: with Steedman's contribution
and the Marxist reaction to it we find a peculiarly sharp, frank and
productive exchange. Steedman, to his great credit, ratcheted up the
rhetoric by accusing Marxist defenders of the LTV of not understanding
basic arithmetic and the rules of logic: a more highly charged
critique than suggesting that a theory may unconsciously reflect the
interests of a particular economic class.

But this is how understanding progresses: by critique and
counter-critique. It does not progress by keeping one's views private
for fear of offending the other party, which is the essence of the
advice you give at the beginning of this thread.

I also note your repeated pejorative references in this thread to the
TSSI school, despite  TSSI being tangential to the point in hand. In
the spirit of exchange I have some debating advice for you too: resist
the temptation of using OPE-L to promote your personal vendetta
against the TSSI. They are not here to defend themselves, an outcome
you had a hand in, and given your postings on the TSSI over the years,
I feel you have lost the moral authority to objectively comment on
their contributions to economics.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:20 EDT