On Jul 16, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
http://jacobinmag.com/summer-2011/zombie-marx/
Beggs wrote:
"If we are to engage in these ways with modern economics, what, if
anything, makes our analysis distinctively Marxist? It is the two-fold
project behind Capital as a critique of political economy: first to
demonstrate the social preconditions that lie beneath the concepts of
political economy and especially their dependence on class
relationships; [which is a *sociological* proposition] and second, to
demonstrate these social relations as historical, not eternal. [which
is a *historical* proposition]
Neither does anything at all in relation to what *Marx* defined as the
central purpose of *Das Kapital*: "to lay bare the economic law of
motion of modern society." "Neoclassical" economics, defining itself
by the inherently static "equilibrium" concept, is alien to that very
notion and so it totally misinterprets what Marx calls "the law of
value" as an easily refuted "labor theory of equilibrium price."
To discuss Marxian vs. Neoclassical economic theory in terms of price
theory, as Beggs does, is to waste our time.
Shane Mage
"scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying
attention to"
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
