value

Steve.Keen at unsw.edu.au Steve.Keen at unsw.edu.au
Tue Oct 17 01:54:51 MDT 1995


You know John, one of the problems with the Internet
form of debate is that opinions such as you
developed of my interpretation of Marx can easily
be developed, because what you see is only a
snippet of the full picture your "opponent" has. So
you say the following, based on the 1,000 or so
words of mine you have read on this subject:

|   I appreciate John Ernst's comments, as well as
|those by Jerry Levy, in response to the very confusing
|and confused arguments advanced by Steve Keen in an
|apparent attempt to show the weaknesses of Marxism.
|   Marx has to be first understood and appreciated on
|his own ground... Steve pulls bits and pieces of
|Marx's thought out of their framework, and he then
|tries to reinterpret them in the light of the specific
|theoretical structure which inhabits his own mind. I
|won't try to define this "structure" any further, except
|to say that it owes little to Marx....

The academic peer review process that exists behind
academic journals on the one hand, and academic theses
on the other, is of course much slower than Internet
exchanges. It has the flaw that academic egos sometimes
get in the way, as do recalcitrant editors, and so on.
But it has the advantage that a reviewer/examiner is
confronted with a completely constructed work, which
represents the thinkers views as best as the thinker
can put them. The review process itself can hone both
those views, and their presentation.

All of the above is a preamble to saying that I am
not taking umbrage at your portrayal of my views. Yet.
But I will take umbrage if you do not now take a look at
2 things:
*	The academic expression of my views, in either
the 2 JHET papers (references below), or (preferably,
given the detail required here) my thesis, which is
available from the Marxism archives;
*	The following excerpts from academic assessments
of those papers and the thesis:

John E King, my thesis examiner and editor of the
3-volume set _Marxian Economics_ and numerous other
works on Marx (I presume you know of him):

"It was a pleasure to read this thesis, which is
scholarly, well-written and thought-provoking.
I disagree with several of Mr Keen's central
arguments, but have nothing but admiration for the
way in which his case has been presented..."

Reviewers from the History of Political Economy and
the Journal of the History of Economic Thought:

"Steven Keen's paper has an important point to make
in the history of economics, and it is an original
point..."

"I find the approach to the problem of use-value
correct..."

"These foundational and fundamental topics are
important and warrant systematic discussion. The
approach taken ... makes JHET an appropriate
journal for submission of the manuscript..."

"This is a startling, original, and extremely
important interpretation of Marx's economics,
one which would be likely to stir a significant
controversy. The issues are subtle, and this
surprising thesis might not survive the
onslaught of criticisms it would unleash, but
it would be fascinating to find out if it
could..."

So John, those who have examined my detailed views
a bit more closely than you are not quite so
dismissive. I will consider your opinions of
my work *after* you've also taken a look at them.
There's no point in doing so beforehand.

Cheers,
Steve Keen
References
Journal of the History of Economic Thought,
1993, Vol. 15 Nos. 1&2, pp. 107-121 and
pp. 282-300.
The thesis is available by ftp, gopher and
www from csf.colorado.edu in the econ/authors/
Keen.Steve subdirectory.


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



More information about the Marxism mailing list