Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx's "Capital"

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Mon Sep 03 2007 - 10:11:54 EDT

Every scientific approach has problems; we don't reach TRUTH.  If anyone 
claims that Marxist economics is destroyed because of the transformation 
problem, we can quickly reply that mainstream economics has its own 
problems of price determination yet it is not considered destroyed.  (I'm 
not equalizing the two approaches in making this comment.)

Those who want to batter Marx with transformation problems, want to batter 
Marx.  Their deeper reasons lie elsewhere.

More responsible scholars ask "what else do you have to offer?".  Fred, you 
are one of those you have offered a lot of empirical research on the 
development of the U.S. economy.  Are you still working in that area?  I 
ask because I see declining output by U.S. researchers as earlier 
represented by work of Wolff, Shaikh and Tonak, and yourself (Victor Kasper 


--On Sunday, September 02, 2007 2:16 AM -0400 glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote:

>> The “transformation problem” has been the main reason given by
>> mainstream economists and others for rejecting Marx’s theory, and the
>> labor theory of value in particular, over the last century (two
>> centuries, if we go back to Ricardo!).
> Hi Fred:
> I do not think that is true.  It is one of many criticisms which have been
> made and not a very influential one at that.  I have never met anyone who
> rejected Marx's perspective or Marxism for that reason.
> It perhaps was influential among certain economists, but certainly not
> publicly.  How many people in a million could tell you the meaning of the
> TP?  Among economists and economiscs students, only a small percentage who
> are interested in the HET are aware that there has even been this debate.
> It is only among Marxians that the debate is well known.  Indeed, had it
> not been for the Marxian contributions to the debate then it would have
> ended long ago.
> I view this idea about the relative importance of the charges of Marx's
> alleged internal inconsistencies as a mainstay of the *mythology* that has
> arisen in relation to the TP. It is a rationalization, not a fact.
> In solidarity, Jerry

(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001  "a benchmark in 9/11 research"
         Research in Political Economy, P.Zarembka,ed, Elsevier hardback

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT