RE: Re: RE: Suppression of Marx

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

I think that the answer to Michael's question is yet to be fully
answered.  Sraffa's papers were for many years not available to most
people.  I have made the argument that there is a difference between
Sraffa and the Sraffians myself, or at least that Sraffa is open to
other interpretations, but the former is not an easy argument to make
for a few reasons.  One is that clearly three of Sraffa's closest
students were Garegnani, Bharadwaj, and Schefold--all neo-Ricardians.
While the argument about other legitimate interpretations of Sraffa is
aided by both the fact that he published so little and his writing
style, one must deal with the fact that Sraffa was alive during the
publication of lots of the neo-Ricardian core work and in close contact
with the authors (including cited for thanks for comments in many of the
key papers).  So it is hard to imagine that he was strongly opposed to
the way the neo-R's developed his ideas...

By the way, the argument that Sraffa's own work was wholly negative
(criticizing others) is not true.  He did also offer positive
contributions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 10:22 AM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:23464] Re: RE: Suppression of Marx

Was Sraffa a Sraffian/neo-Ricardian; did he ever go beyond critiquing
neo-classical garbage?