Re: [OPE-L] reply to Ian W

From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 09:39:59 EDT

I apologize for the tone of my previous message - even though I feel
I was deliberately provoked.  My comment about the articles
in the  Mandel and Freeeman ed.  _Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa_  book
were misleading so I will briefly elaborate.

Part of the response to Steedman's book was to label 'Neo-Ricardianism'
a form of "vulgar economics".  This was in sharp contrast to the tone
of exchanges before the publication of the books by Steedman and Lippi.

The charge that surplus approach theory was "vulgar" attempted to
make connections between that theory and those of Torrens, McCoulough,
etc. At the same time, it was suggested by the same authors that
there was a particular (non-working class) basis to surplus approach theory.
This obviously was very germaine to the discussion I was having with Ian.
He was raising criticisms which had been directed at that school of thought
in the early 1980s.

Freeman and Guissani were part of that response.  They made and echoed
these same claims.  I actually took a class with Paolo on Neo-Ricardianism
during this period (1981, perhaps?) so I can definately tell you that
identifying Neo-Ricardianism as "vulgar economics" was a major component of
his critique. He published quite a bit on this, but much of it in Italian or
translated into English but circulated to students rather than being

I was at the New School when this was going on and I remember it well.
Is it coincidence that Gary was also there duing this period?  I don't think
so.  Is it mere coincidence that he would go on to claim that some
of those who had labelled surplus approach theory as "vulgar economics"
were themselves presenting vulgar economics? I don't think so.

This speaks very clearly to the point  I was making and was a _direct_
response to Ian's request for examples.  It is, in fact, a case in point
- and the most germain case in point possible since this thread evolved
out of a discussion of both surplus approach theory and the TSSI -
of what happens when the 'class card' is used to attempt to dismiss
and categorize another heterodox economics perspective.

In solidarity, Jerry

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