utopia/Freeman's dynamics

John R. Ernst ernst at pipeline.com
Sun Oct 15 17:53:23 MDT 1995


Steve,   
 
 
Once again, you are a day ahead of us.  You state 
that your "aim is to identify those parts of Marx's 
analysis that are static and get rid of them."  That 
would seem to say you've found "those parts."  
You then refer me to your works.  I'll take one specfic  
reference to anything in Book I.  Indeed, given you  
have references, why not use them to refute Alan's  
stuff?   
 
The  difficulties I have with your effort here is 
that your identification is not only lacking but also 
that given a non-simultaneous interpretation much 
(probably all) of what you see as mistaken in the 
labor theory of value is not.   So why do this?   
You are fighting against those with whom we both 
agree read Marx wrongly.   
 
Yours in yesterday, 
 
John 
 
 
 
On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 Steve.Keen at unsw.edu.au said: 
 
 
>John E comments that in my reply to Jim Miller I "again try to 
>save a place for static analysis within the realm of Marx." 
> 
>Whoops! No I don't John: instead, if anything, my aim is to 
>identify those parts of Marx's analysis that are static and 
>get rid of them! 
> 
>Where I differ from the vast majority of Marxists is that I 
>believe the labor theory of value is "static", for the reason 
>that, in my opinion, it contradicts Marx's fundamental 
>dialectical analysis, and I see those dialectics as the 
>foundation of a dynamic analysis of capitalism. 
> 
>All of this is most assuredly not based on second-hand 
>readings of Marx--certainly not neoclassical ones--and I 
>have assembled quite a large amount of "textual evidence 
>for this interpretation", which is published, and which 
>this list has on occasions heard quite a bit about. 
> 
>Don't think I'm a fan of the Sraffians either. Sraffa, yes, 
>because as you acknowledge, what he intended and provided 
>was a critique of standard economics; but not those who 
>mistakenly attempt to apply his 1960 methodology as a 
>basis for the analysis of capitalism itself (in fact, 
>as I think I noted to this list, I've recently submitted 
>a paper to the Review of Political Economy which attempts 
>to turn Steedman's critique of Kaleckian economics on 
>its head--by providing a dynamic critique of Sraffian 
>economics). 
> 
>Cheers, 
>Steve Keen 
> 
> 
>     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu --- 
> 
> 
-- 
John R. Ernst 


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---



More information about the Marxism mailing list