On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> But this is silly, since 100 years ago, disproportionality was the > "orthodoxy." In other eras, under-consumption theory was the > "orthodoxy." But there is no orthodoxy (except in method, I'd say, > following Georg Lukacs). And just because something is called > "orthodox" doesn't mean that it's accurate (or, for that matter, > wrong). As with Rosa Luxemburg's personal motto, we should "doubt > all." We can learn a heck of a lot from Marx and his followers, but > that doesn't mean that we stop thinking. (The same applies to any > other thinker.) =================== So why shouldn't we doubt Lukacs as much as we doubt Morishima or Roemer, or Luxemburg herself? I'm all for getting rid of the term orthodoxy when it comes to "shop talk" in political economy; just as much as I'm prepared to jettison "free trade", "free market" "perfect competition" etc. A culling of concepts/terms in the idiom are long overdue. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
