Re: Dialectics and complexity

[P8475423@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Re Jerry's comment:
It is not accidental that we can have a healthy exchange of views with
Steve since, whatever one thinks about the limitations of Post-Keynesian
...
There I go trying to set up an argument and (before
my post arrives) Jerry hits me, or rather my school of economics,
with a compliment! Well, thank you; but on to the substantive
comment he made:

|How does one understand, though, the complexity of capitalist economic
|relations? What method does one use to analyze topics in political
|economy? I continue to believe that Marx's dialectical method allows for
|a richer understanding of those processes than do more formal
|mathematical methods (whether they are equilibrium or disequilibrium
|models) that are so favored by contemporary economists. The
|danger is not in straying from Marx but is, through skipping stages in
|the process of abstraction, oversimplifying (and, thereby, necessarily
|distorting) the reality of capitalism.

I happen to agree with the above, but with a twist. As I argued in
my paper "A Marx for Post Keynesians", I believe that it is possible
to derive Post Keynesian economics, in all its breadth, from a
dialectical interpretation of Marx (one which necessarily omits a
labor theory of value--though it can live with a labor measure of
value).

I might add that the above claim is thus far as unpopular with Post
Keynesians as its companion claim (on which Louis dubbed me Captain
Ahab!) is with Marxists. As Jerry correctly identifies, Post Keynesians,
who lack a unifying axiomatic or philosophical foundation, have
tended to make a virtue of necessity and argue that the tools they
employ are simply chosen for the task at hand.

Cheers,
Steve


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------