Jim - You may or may not have legitimate grievances with David Spencer's
treatment of your own work. However, you say that:
>I'm sorry, but so far it seems to involve a bunch of dreck, despite its
>good points. It's basically true (spot on) about B&G, but I hate seeing
my
>research being thrown into the reified category of "radical economics."
>(RPE was something practiced by heterogeneous individuals, not a
>disembodied intellectual force with a life of its own.)
If it is "spot on" with regard to the work of B&G, and has "good
points," then why is it drek? Certainly, it is not enough that you
"hate seeing [your] research being thrown into the reified category of
"radical economics"?
I also think that the argument that radical political economy is merely
"something practiced by heterogeneous individuals" is weak. Radical
political economics has an organizational and institutional history (an
organization--Union for Radical Political Economics, a journal--Review
of Radical Political Economics, conferences--summer camp and sessions at
the ASSA, a newsletter). There are also books and courses on radical
political economics, including Elgar Companion and/or Handbook, etc. At
U. Mass, the New School, American U., Riverside, radical political
economics represented one of the alternative heterodox traditions
represented in the curriculum and on the faculty. So I don't think it
is fair to say that it is not an identifiable tradition with some basic
characteristics that distinguish it from other heterodox traditions and
the mainstream. I think you might be a bit too close to it to think
about it with the required distance.
Also, whether one must look at all of an author's subsequent work
depends on the argument that is being made. Like it or not, your
earlier work is part of a history, and for some purposes the fact that
you later changed your mind is irrelevant. Again, it depends on the
argument being made. If the argument is about *you* and your thought,
then obviously it is relevant that you changed your mind. But if it
about a body of work, and your earlier work is part of it, then your
changing your mind may not be relevant, or maybe only a footnote. (By
the way, I haven't seen the final article, though I read an earlier
version presented at a conference at Leeds in 1997. I didn't even
recall Jim's place in the article; if asked before Jim posted this, I
would have said it was about Gordon, Edwards, and Reich, and Bowles and
Gintis.)
Also, I don't think that it is very fair to say that Spencer's argument
is that
>there exists a correct [Marxist] line, so that deviation from it leads
to sliding down the >slippery slope to neoclassical economics.
I thought the argument was that this work accepted too much of
neoclassical economics, incorporated too much from neoclassical
economics (like maqrginal utility, etc.) into the overall framework, not
that deviation from another Marxism led to neoclassical economics. I
know some of the work he is critiquing explicitly incorporates
neoclassical economics into the framework. That is not the same thing.
Also, I'm not sure of your argument that his methodological critique is
"idealist," and ignores a materialist interpretation of the decline of
RPE. Marx oftened critiqued work on methodological and theoretical
grounds. I don't think such critique is necessarily "idealist." And the
decline of the antiwar movement, etc., would not explain why RPE was
still strong through the 1980s (and even through the 1990s, etc.).
Jim, you should be flattered! I wish someone thought anything I'd
written was worthy of criticism!
Also, if you have problems with the piece, why don't you write a
response for the CJE?
Mat
