In his blog, Louis says: > It is not every day that you find an op-ed piece in the NY Times proffering what appears to be Marxist advice. In this instance I am not speaking of Paul Krugman’s endorsement of Michael Kalecki that amounted to dipping his big toe into the Marxist pool. After all, there is some question as to how to categorize Kalecki, some seeing him as a post-Keynesian rather than a Marxist. Krugman reflects this uncertainty when he writes: “Kalecki was, after all, a declared Marxist (although I don’t see much of Marx in his writings)”.<
I think that PK's statement reflects his ignorance. After all, how many non-Marxists write about "Class Struggle and the Distribution of National Income" or about "The Problem of Effective Demand with Tugan-Baranovski and Rosa Luxemburg"? how many would advise the Cuban revolutionary government? But there's another reason. Kalecki did what a lot of lefty and Marxist economists have done for decades, i.e., trying to translate Marxian and Marx-influenced ideas into the language of the dominant school of economics. (I think that his theory of pricing was influenced by Marxian theories of exploitation and monopoly.) He was a mathematical economist. -- Jim
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
