Jim wrote
In the context of Amherst, a pomotista is a Wolf/Resnick
postmodernist-Marxist (or Marxist-postmodernist). As I understand their
view, it is that (1) there's no way to decide between neoclassical and
Marxist theory except via moral commitment (leaning toward epistemological
nihilism) and that (2) the Marxian view of the world involves seeing every
situation as overdetermined by economics, politics, class, race, gender,
etc., with none of the determinations or structures being more important
than any of the others.
The problem with number 2 above is that if - at the level of theory --
capitalist economic relations are no more important for causing bad stuff
than, say, shoe styles than there is no reason to desire to transform
economic relations more than there is to alter shoe styles.
They do have a non-explanation for why they end up focusing on class
relations but it is silly and, possibly, intellectually dishonest.
And, by the way, Wolf/Resnick have merely taken the point-of-view of
neoclassical general equilibrium theory (everything affects everything else)
as their theoretical blueprint for their Marxist theory.
Eric
