******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
As I understand it, that was also Oskar Lange's position too. Like Robinson, he thought that Marx's concept of exploitation could be reconstructed without reference to the LTV. That thesis was also taken up by some of the Analytical Marxists, like John Roemer, who devoted some of his earlier work to the reconstruction of Marx's concept of exploitation. In the case of Roemer, he seems to have later concluded that exploitation was of less a concern than income distribution. I think that represented on his part a much greater breach with Marxian orthodoxy that his attempts at reconstructing the concept of exploitation. I am reminded that a half-century ago, David Horowitz, as a Marxist, put out a couple of books dealing with Marxian and bourgeois economics. The first book, Marx and Modern Economics, was published by MR Press. It was a collection of essays from assorted economists, both Marxist and bourgeois, which explored the relationships between Marxian political economy and then contemporary mainstream economics. For Horowitz, the key to this perceived convergence was the work of John Maynard Keynes and his disciples, which on Horowitz's opinion, had brought mainstream economics much closer to Marxian economics. This view reflected the influence of people like Joan Robinson and Oskar Lange on his own thinking. The second book was The Fate of Midas and Other Essays, was a a collection of essays, all by Horowitz, many of which were on the same theme as the first book mentioned above. In one of the essays, Horowitz discussed the economic ideas of Paul Sweezy, asserting that Paul Sweezy's economics did not require the LTV. Sweezy objected to this interpretation of his ideas, but I am not sure that Horowitz was wrong about that point. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant http://www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Michael Meeropol via Marxism <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Pluralism in economics: mainstream, heterodox and Marxist | Michael Roberts Blog Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 03:54:06 -0400 My view -- from Joan Robinson -- is you can have a rate of exploitation without recourse to the labor theory of value -- the distribution of the fruits of production (HOWEVER MEASURED -- which permits using only prices and money wages) is based on struggle both at the point of production and at thepoint of "realization" --- and that is what drives capitalism forwards. You don't need a "value theory" at all -- it just wastes time and energy. (I know -- this is me being a real "philistine" and revealing a lack of real theoretical grounding --- but there you have it ....) On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 7:44 AM Louis Proyect via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > > https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/04/03/pluralism-in-economics-mainstream-heterodox-and-marxist/ > _________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Drink This Before Bed, Watch Your Body Fat Melt Like Crazy medjournal.com-publish.net http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5ca86e3047e266e3061cfst01vuc _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
