raghu wrote: > That is not how I read the above quoted comment. I read it as saying > that the basic Marxist construct i.e. the labor vs capital dialectic > is a gross oversimplification, and so is the "free-market theory" > (whatever the latter refers to, let us say Adam Smith for the sake of > discussion).
for what it's worth, Smith's view is "free market" vis-a-vis the Mercantilism of his time, but leaves lots of openings for non-free-market economics. > I read the above comment as basically saying that both Marx and Smith > violate Einstein's famous admonition that "things should be made as > simple as possible, but no simpler". to my mind, whether a theory is too simple or not depends on its application. Marx's main economic theory concerns the dynamics of capitalism as a whole. Applying it to smaller venues or different times can then be either dogmatic or sophisticated. It's up to the practitioner. By the way, your assertion here is also very abstract, i.e., excessively simple. What, specifically, are you talking about. > Marx and Smith are like two blind men groping an elephant; both > contain very important insights, but then get carried away in > insisting that they alone have perceived the true essence of the > elephant. As far as I know, neither Marx nor Smith claimed that they were the only sources of truth (not to mention the Truth). Their followers are another matter. Alas, no one can choose his or her followers or punish them when they make outrageous claims in the "Master's" name. At least Marx insisted that he was no "Marxist" in response to the oversimplified perspectives of some of his followers. -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, at the very least you should know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
