Re: Re: Wolfson on Marx

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Justin wrote:
> Sure, that view is ideological, but my recollection of the book, which is
> hazy as yours, was that it was useful. Course if I am any kind of Marxist,
> I am an AM, so my standards are probably more tolerant towards Wolfson's
> sort of thing than yours are.

As you know, I've published an article (with Michael Reich) which many
consider to be AM [analytical Marxist, for the non-initiated]. I see
nothing wrong with AM _per se_ if by it you mean the construction of
economic models or socio-economic models (like the one I recently published
in POLITICS & SOCIETY), though of course no model should be taken too
seriously (reified). AMers like Jon Elster have produced a lot of
interesting work -- like his NUTS AND BOLTS FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES or THE
MULTIPLE SELF, etc. John Roemer's theory of exploitation is interesting as
a model, even though I find that it's seriously flawed as a description of
capitalism.

The problem with Wolfson is the same problem I find with AM: they seem
unable to even try to get inside of Marx's head to try to figure out the
way he was looking at the world. Instead, they put him on the Procrustean
Bed of the dominant views of social sciences: if Marx is too tall on one
thing, they cut him off (forcing his theory into a limited framework, such
as reinforcing the division between politics and economics), while if he's
too short they stretch him, adding stuff like utility maximization and the
like. I think they should read Bertell Ollman's book, ALIENATION.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine