File spoon-archives/marxism2.archive/marxism2_1996/96-10-21.210, message 194


Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:00:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy-AT-pratt.edu>
Subject: Re: HoPE article


> Anthony Brewer provided a discussion in the form of a critic of the place
> of Marx in the history of economic thought and his contribution to
> economic theory, titled "A Minor Post-Ricardian? Marx as an Economist"
> (Brewer:111-45); which nine Marxian economists responded to (mostly in
> defense of Marx).

Two brief points:

(1) It has long been a postulate of Neo-Ricardianism that Marx was simply
a left-wing Ricardian. This interpretation is based on an attempt to
vacate and reject Marx's understanding of value and dialectical method and
replace it with linear production theory. *If* one accepts that
interpretation of  Marx (which I don't), then I can see how one can view
Marx as a "minor Post-Ricardian" and an "economist."

(2) More generally, I see the above as an expression of the
disillusionment among [non-anti-Stalinists] that followed the collapse of
the USSR, etc.. A similar development happened after the Khruschev
revelations and after Mao's death. Those who have illusions will
eventually see them crushed -- unless they are so out of touch with
reality that they cling to the illusions against all evidence to the
contrary.

Jerry



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005