[PEN-L:11534] Re: Re: Intuition in Math Reasoning

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Romain Kroes writes: >... because of a paralyzing devoutness, Marxists
never tried, too, to go beyond the conceptual contradiction against which
Marx came up. <

what specific conceptual contradiction are you talking about? the
"contradiction" of the so-called "transformation problem"?

>neoclassical economists are unable to overcome the lesser epistemologic
obstacle.<

what obstacle? how do they overcome it?

As for "paralyzing devoutness," assuming that you're talking about the
"transformation problem," you should look at:
_Marx_and_Non-equilibrium_Economics_ (editors: Alan Freeman,  Guglielmo
Carchedi; Cheltenham [England] & Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar, 1996). This
book defends Marx's approach to the transformation without any devoutness
at all. In fact, they attack the devoutness of the neoclassical and
neoclassical-Marxist belief in equilibrium.


in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; as far as they are certain, they really do not refer to
reality." -- Albert Einstein.