I don't see how the intelligent use of bourgeois stats and categories doesn't accomplish the same task.
With a suitable definition of "intelligent use," it must accomplish the same task.
But then we cannot easily communicate the results to orthodox Marxists with no or little training in standard economics. And, yes, there's a (growing?) group of Marxists that don't have (don't want to have?) training in standard economics. Perhaps they've decided a priori that -- after David Ricardo -- there's nothing in "bourgeois" economics worthy of study.
I don't know if this belief underlies it, but there is a recent posting on PEN-L about advising students to avoid graduate economics programs. If this is a broader trend, then Marxists are increasingly moving to history, geography, sociology, political science, literature, gender studies, cultural studies, etc. -- running away from economics.
This creates a real rift -- at first academic, but potentially political. If we don't speak the same language, we are more likely to misunderstand each other.
However, at the end of the day, it's the broader public that we want to engage with. So, I really don't know what the best answer is -- except that it is a good idea to try and be conversant in orthodox Marxism, modern economics, etc., and not to reject others on the basis of terminological preference.
Julio
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Amor: busca tu ½ naranja http://latino.msn.com/autos/
