Re: [Marxism] re sweezy

[Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:09:19 -0430 "michael a. lebowitz"
<mlebowit@xxxxxx> writes:
> Michael Friedman wrote:]
> > With all due respect to Dick Levins (who has been an inspiration 
> to me), I
> > would say it depends on whether or not the "part" has an organic
> > connection to the whole. To use an analogy from another ongoing 
> discussion
> > on this list, simply because working class people pick up 
> xenophobic and
> > racist ideologies does not give them "new properties". Or another, 
> if I
> > transplant a pig's heart into a human, it won't become a human 
> heart, nor
> > will the "whole" human function properly. And the idea of a 
> "whole" is,
> > itself, relative and conditional. The whole working class? The 
> whole
> > capitalist system? Just because Sweezy was a Marxist, doesn't 
> transform
> > his Keynesian "part" into Marxism. Doesn't make him less of one, 
> but he
> > could've been wrong, you know...
>      I think the analogy is bad. My simple point was that insofar as 
> 
> Sweezy drew upon [as a part] Keynes, it did not make him a Keynesian 
>  
> [indeed, according to Jim F, 'one of the pioneer Keyensian
> economists in the US, right alongside his more famous colleagues 
> like 
> Paul Samuelson'] --- any more than it made Marx a Ricardian because 
> he 
> drew upon [as a part] Ricardo. Or, for that matter, a human being 
> into a 
> pig if the recipient of some part from a pig. It's the
> combination that matters, not the origin of the parts. Very simply, 
> Jim 
> begged the question.

Apparently, I have done so along with lots of other
people.  For one example see Robert Pollin's
tribute to Sweezy at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/pollin03062004.html

Likewise, see this Indian Maoist take on Sweezy at:
http://www.massline.org/PolitEcon/MR/Gupta_On_Sweezy.htm

Paul Mattick in his hostile take on Sweezy, placed
great emphasis on the Keynesian influence, for
example see:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1955/sweezy.htm

Michael apparently has a bee in his bonnet
about this issue.  If blending Keynesian
economic analysis with Marxism leads
to a deeper understanding of how
capitalist economies work and
how we can transform them into
socialist economies then so be it.
Yet even in his 2004 piece on
Sweezy, he still has to acknowledge
Sweezy's debt to Keynes.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1004lebowitz.htm

Jim F.

>        michael
> 
> -- 
> Michael A. Lebowitz
> Professor Emeritus
> Economics Department
> Simon Fraser University
> Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
> 
> Director, Programme in 'Transformative Practice and Human 
> Development'
> Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H.
> Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar
> Caracas, Venezuela
> fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231
> www.centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve
> mlebowit@xxxxxx
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Set your options at: 
>
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/farmelantj%40juno.com
> 
> 
 
____________________________________________________________
Get the word out. Click here for professional brochure production!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw3BY3ipG330ZZEudYs1Za6dd5RTSQZNk45GZWtshfWe8nHm3/

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu