FW: [PEN-L:9995] RE: Pen-l and the sharing of learning
jcraven at SPAMclark.edu
Fri Aug 13 10:59:23 MDT 1999
From: Craven, Jim [mailto:jcraven at clark.edu]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 9:58 AM
To: 'pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu'; 'marxism at lists.panix'
Subject: [PEN-L:9995] RE: Pen-l and the sharing of learning
Michael Perelman wrote:
Louis Proyect's occasional reviews of books and culture offer a model of
another way of communicating. Although he does not cover strictly
economic subjects, I wish that I were able to convey the aura of new
materials to the list in such a way.
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
Response (Jim C):
What exactly are "strictly" economic subjects? I know what the
ultra-reductionist and linear neo-classicals mean by that, but I don't know
what "progressive" economists mean by that.
After introducing and faithfully teaching the ultra-reductionism of
neo-classical economics, in my classes, we explore examples of how history,
culture, law, politics, economics, technology, methodology, "natural
sciences" social class and strata, ideology, epistemology etc are intimately
and inextricably tied together in ways that the ultra-reductionists can
never model or explain, and indeed do consciously avoid, in order to avoid
rather than deal with burning issues of the times and advance their careers
in the "acceptable" and "legitimate" venues.
I know for sure that Indian issues have a whole lot to do with "strictly"
and more than "strictly" economics; the same applies to culture, sexism,
racism, fascism, globalism, development, trade, history--and views of
history, imperialism, methodology, epistemology, statistics (and which are
selected and how they are used), ideology... etc etc.
(off to due some "field work" in not "strictly" economics)
More information about the Marxism