[Marxism] RE Marxism] Michael Keany on MR China article (from a-list)

[Ilyenkova@xxxxxxx]

In this cross posting Michael Keany wrote:
>While O'Connor charts his growing realisation that both
typical Marxist and neoclassical treatments of public finance were overly
empiricist in their approach, he describes his parallel development of a
theoretical perspective that could best be described as a combination of
political economy and political sociology. Falling between so many of the
disciplinary stools that are the reified building blocks of acadème,
O'Connor's book received a mixed reception, including outright hostility
from avowedly Marxist economists who had settled upon a particular way of
viewing "the economy".<

I have to confess I've never understood a word James O'Connor wrote, not even 
in "Fiscal Crisis" his most accessible work (and I can handle all 3 volumes 
of Das Kapital and the awkward sentences of Ernest Mandel's ouvre). I think the 
problem runs deeper than his neologistic style of composition. His 
methodology ("a combination of poitical economy and sociology") is a stumbling 
block for 
those reading him from the Marxist tradition. Robert Fitch among others has 
written cogently and persuasively on the fiscal crisis, relating instances like 
NYC's fiscal collapse in the 1970s to the shifting hegemonies and moves of cap
ital fractions. 
If anyone (Louis??) would like to paraphrase the thesis of "Fiscal Crisis" 
please do.If it's that significant it deserves a broader airing. On the matter 
of Marxists enamored of Chinese market socialism add to the list: David 
Schweikart, mathematician, professor of Philosophy and contributor to "Market 
Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists." And Richard Wolff, Economics Professor 
at 
UMass-Amherst. I attended a Wolff lecture, "What is it that collapsed when the 
USSR collapsed?" His answer: "Capitalism!" Seriously. For this economist and 
former Maoist development model sympathizer, capitalism exists wherever markets 
do, so the only question is whether markets are more or less state managed. 
When I asked if Marx would have accepted this definition of capitalism as a 
mode 
of production, Wolff answered that after getting over the romantic aversion 
to markets of his early works the mature Marx believed markets were a 
'permanent' feature of any future economy. 
While we don't want to become rigidly economistic I think this enthusing over 
China's market socialism by purported Marxists is a reminder that while we 
struggle to find the way to a politics of revolutionary socialist practice we 
neglect Marxian economics at our peril.
Ilyenkova
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism