[OPE-L:5103] Horvat on suppression of theoretical perspective plus ...

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I bought an interesting book by Branko Horvat (along

with another book, Michael P's _Transcending the

Economy_) on sale a little while ago at "The Strand"

bookstore.

 

Branko Horvat's book, _The Theory of International

Trade: An Alternative Approach_  (NY, St. Martin's

Press, 1999) gives a rare "in print" example of

(should I say, "alleged"?) suppression:

 

"Since I do not find neoclassical theory of great use,

not much of it will be found in this book. But I made

every effort not to neglect any good scholarly work as

the list of references demonstrates. On the other

hand, Neo-Ricardian theory naturally fits into my

theoretical framework much better and I do not

hesitate to use the research results of Neo-Ricardians.

At the time of writing, I was not aware how dangerous

that was. Later I observed that Neo-Ricardians are

mostly ignored and rarely if ever quoted in the

mainstream literature. The reason for this neglect was

explained to me in a letter by Christopher Bliss after

he had negatively reviewed my book on value and

capital -- without having given himself the trouble of

reading it! Professor Bliss advises me of the fact that

'in this field there is a large divide between the broadly

"Neo-Ricardian" writers and those of a more

"Neoclassical" inclination,' classifies me among

unpleasant Neo-Ricardians (which I am not) and states

that he does not belong to the 'same school (sic!),'

adds that 'reviews ought to be entertaining' and

observes that 'ultimately such issues are matters of

opinion,' leaving no doubt that his opinion is negative.

A nice set of 'scientific' criteria. Professor Bliss is one

of the editors of *Economic Journal* and a former editor

of *Oxford Economic Papers*." (pp. x-xi).

 

I think it took some courage on Horvat's part to make

the above public. I think it is far more common for

victims of theoretical suppression to go "silently

into the night".  In any event, his story is a good case

study of how all heterodox theoretical perspectives are

suppressed by the oppression of the marginalists.

 

I wonder: what were the reviews like for *this* book?

 

The next paragraph some on this list might find

interesting as well:

 

"Neo-Ricardians, however, do themselves a dis-service

in constantly attacking the labour theory of value trying

to show how Sraffa demolished it. It seems to me that they

believe that only one labour theory imaginable is that

of Ricardo and Marx. In Chapter 17, I showed what

motivated Marx to use the value theory that was at

hand, namely that of Ricardo. If Neo-Ricardians drop the

assumption of one possible labour theory, they will

realize that a poor labour theory may be replaced by

a better one and that Sraffa could have written a simpler book free of artificial constructs. Perhaps, some day

Sraffians may attempt to accomplish that. But that will

not endear them to the dominant academic coterie"

(Ibid).

 

The above is very suggestive and assertive and I have

not read Ch. 17 on "Unequal Exchange" so I can not

comment further at this time.

 

In solidarity, Jerry