it depends on what you're measuring Quiggin against. He's no Marxist, but by the standards of the orthodoxy, he's pretty good.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/4/11 12:56 AM, Lakshmi Rhone wrote: >> Over at the crooked timber website John Quiggin has presented a three >> post critical reflection on Marx. The criticisms are very damaging--for >> example, no one true to Marx's labor value theoretic reasoning has ever >> done as mathematically sophisticated and interesting work as Quiggin >> himself has; he is having his way with critics except of course the >> highly prominent host of marxmail.org <http://marxmail.org> Louis >> Proyect who continues to represent Marx's legacy brilliantly. > > Mathematically sophisticated and interesting work? > > Really? Maybe Rakesh can cite a paragraph or two of Quiggin's research. > I find him exceedingly banal myself. (I am referring to Quiggin, of course.) > > Here's a snippet of Quiggin's profound insights: > > "What does it matter whether the incomes of the top 1 per cent are > derived from ownership of capital or from some more complex combination > of direct ownership, managerial control and straightforward corruption?" > > Who would have anticipated that the Rakesh of 15 years ago, the ardent > ultraleftist youth, would have become so impressed with a pipe-smoking > Keynesian don like Quiggin. I think that a materialist interpretation of > the history of a single individual is in order. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
