Re: utopia/Freeman's dynamics

[Steve.Keen@xxxxxxxxxxx]

John E comments that in my reply to Jim Miller I "again try to
save a place for static analysis within the realm of Marx."

Whoops! No I don't John: instead, if anything, my aim is to
identify those parts of Marx's analysis that are static and
get rid of them!

Where I differ from the vast majority of Marxists is that I
believe the labor theory of value is "static", for the reason
that, in my opinion, it contradicts Marx's fundamental
dialectical analysis, and I see those dialectics as the
foundation of a dynamic analysis of capitalism.

All of this is most assuredly not based on second-hand
readings of Marx--certainly not neoclassical ones--and I
have assembled quite a large amount of "textual evidence
for this interpretation", which is published, and which
this list has on occasions heard quite a bit about.

Don't think I'm a fan of the Sraffians either. Sraffa, yes,
because as you acknowledge, what he intended and provided
was a critique of standard economics; but not those who
mistakenly attempt to apply his 1960 methodology as a
basis for the analysis of capitalism itself (in fact,
as I think I noted to this list, I've recently submitted
a paper to the Review of Political Economy which attempts
to turn Steedman's critique of Kaleckian economics on
its head--by providing a dynamic critique of Sraffian
economics).

Cheers,
Steve Keen


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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