Re: -Reply -Reply

[Ajit Sinha <ASINHA@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Laura,

I did not intend to get in this lengthy debate. And given that I cannot quote
anybody directly unless to write it down and type it back ('cause my system
sucks), it is even more difficult for me to get in a long debate. I think Bill
Mitchell has pretty much said what I was going to say anyway. As I understand
it, there is a great divide in economic theory. On the one side is SCARCITY
APPROACH theory, which places resourse allocation as the central problem of
economic theory. This approach largely relies on some kind of notion of human
nature. Insatiability or the "desire to better one's condition" creates the
problem of 'scarcity' of resources and hence the need for its 'efficient'
allocation. In this case, the theory is necessaritly ROOTED in human individual
(e.g. Robinson Crusoe) and its nature. On the other hand you have a SURPLUS
APPROACH economic theory. In this case the theory begins with the discription
of its object of knowledge, i.e. the society (economic system) it intends to
analyse. In this case society is described as being class society where one
or more classes appropriate 'surplus' produced by other class or classes. In
this case the primary problem is to determine how classes are defined and what
determines the 'surplus'. In this case, the theory cannot be rooted in  human
individual since the starting point is at least two classes or two individuals
and their relationship. The problem of allocation of resources is a secondary
problem for surplus approach economics. As a matter of fact, by assuming
REPRODUCIBILITY, the surplus approach economics tries to undercut the very
hypothesis of scarcity. I, of course, think that Marx was a surplus approach
economist and not a scarcity approach economist-- contrary to many or most
Marxist theoreticians who have placed Marx in the scarcity approach side in
their anti-Sraffian zeal.

By being a non-humanist theorist (i.e. not basing one's theory in some kind of
human nature) does not make one an anti humanbeing. You can be a great enemy of
humanity on the basis of a humanist theory. Ted Winslow says that development
of technology represents the development of universal human mind and the
unfolding of the essense of Man. This is one variant of Hegelian-Marxist-humani
st theory. But then who can criticise Stalin for industralising soviet union
and expanding its mind and bringing the human essence closer to the soviet
people.

You have a nice day too,

ajit