[OPE-L:5714] Re: Re: Re: why are we on this list?

[Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Thu, 31 May 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
>
> >  I think they have effectively derailed what was supposed to be the
> >  point of this list--to extend Marx's unfinished project into a
> >  theory of the world market, the state, central bank policy, etc.
> >  As Steve said, the point of his interventions has been to handicap
> >  the Marxian theoretical project.
>
> I'm not quite sure who the "they" above is supposed to denote, though
> from the context it seems to refer to Steve Keen, Gil Skillman and
> others who are not actually self-described Marxists.
>
> This seems a tendentious if not fantastical claim.  I'm afraid that,
> most of the time, the "core" self-described Marxists on the list are
> much more inclined to debate the interpretation of Marx's writings and
> logical/philosophical issues relating to the consistency or otherwise
> of Marx's theories,


Allin
in my opinion this is because marxians are powerless, and find that
they have to defend themselves from charges of logical incoherence if
they are to be considered respectable. That is, the agenda for
Marxist economics has been set in the bourgeois academy; Steve, Gil
and AJit are merely bringing that point of view into this debate. The
economists here being academic economists have to respond (or concede
as you have) to these charges re: the transformation problem and the
Okishio theorem if they are to be considered respectable members of
the economics profession. The development of Marx's own theory or the
condition of the working class in the present world economy cannot be
the main purpose of a list composed of academic economists. This much
should be clear at this point.  By the way, the debate between Nicky
and Fred is in my opinion not so much about the logical coherence of
marx's theory but how it succeeds or fails in theorizing the
historical specifity of the capitalist mode of production.
Rakesh