Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:57:56 -0700 (MST)
From: hans despain <HANS.DESPAIN-AT-m.cc.utah.edu>
Subject: M-TH: RE: HoPE article


Andrew,

i now understand why you consider Brewer's article chilling.  And i do 
think you may be on better grounds with our interpretation then i am with 
mine.

But with this in mind let me push this a little further.  

i am not a subscriber to HOPE, so i do not have the list of editors etc., 
but i think Brewer is one of the referees of the journal (if not he may 
hold such a position with some other journal).  i suspect that HOPE 
receives an impressive amount of articles on history of thought concerning 
Marx.  Especially with the fall of the Eastern Bloc, the left is tripping 
over itself to explain the relevance of Marx (of course we do not need to 
convince ourselves of this).  If this is so maybe it is the case that 
Brewer has in mind articles which have not made the journal and he is 
defending the idea that this policy should be maintained; even in light 
of the urgent need for Marxists and left to "save" Marx 
(from himself).  In this sense, my interpretation may not have Brewer 
referring to some "nonexistent" phenomena.

Otherwise, Brewer must have in mind some articles which have been 
published in HOPE and don't belong.  i simply do not believe this to be 
his intention.   And if it is i would, of course, disagree with him (at 
least with respect to the collection of marxian articles i have from HOPE).

The art of history of thought is understanding the work of the particular 
thinker or tradition.  That is not over- or under-standing what is to be 
found within the work, but what specifically is there, and how it 
functions within the particular thinker's "system".  The problem with much 
Marxian (anti-)literature is that it is often based (mainly) on second 
hand sources.

But regardless of what Brewer's intentions are, my concerns are towards 
demonstrating the impoverished turn economics took at the turn of the 
century.  And how the absenting of particular categories in the economic 
theorizing turns out to be ideological; how illicit categorical fusions 
and fissions in mainstream economic theory function to stop not 
only Classical (and Marxian) concerns from entering the picture, but also 
how they absent historical, sociological and philosophical issues from 
"economic" reality.

What we can expect to be accomplished in history of thought economic 
journals is quite limited, but very important.  The initial steps in 
re-constructing Marxian economics will first develop and center on 
history of thought and methodological issues; respectively related to 
developing ideological and immanent critiques.  Which is not necessarily 
to separte the individual for the social totality.  

Finally thanks for your comments on TTS interpretation, i won't comment 
here, but perhaps in a future post.  i am going to look up the articles 
mentioned.

hans d.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---