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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005