Subject: M-TH: Re: HoPE article
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:14:48 -0400 ()


     I think that Justin S. already made this point, maybe 
over on the soon-to-be-dead M2 (yes?), I'm losing track of 
these lists, but there are many influences on modern 
mainstream economics that come heavily from Marx, many of 
which are not generally recognized as doing so.  Thus, just 
to pick on one not dependent on accepting a Vol. I version 
of the LTOV, is Marx's analysis of speculative finance and 
business cycles.  Now some of this can be found in various 
people from Sismondi to Hodgkins to J.S. Mill.  But quite a 
bit of it, and the full panoply in Vol. III of _Capital_ 
only first appears in Marx.  The late publication of Vol. 
III is irrelevant in that nobody up to then either did it.  
This influence shows up indirectly in Keynes but directly 
and consciously in Kalecki.  Its descendents in Post 
Keynesian and Post Walrasian analysis are numerous, 
although rarely explicitly recognized or acknowledged.  
There are certainly plenty of other such examples.
     Brewer is simply all wet.
Barkley Rosser
PS to Jerry Levy:  How about inviting some of your buddies 
>from OPE-L onto marxism-thaxis?  My perception about what 
is happening with the marxism lists is that M-I is going to 
be kind of an intermediate zone between the old M1 and M2, 
with M-G being the hard core holdover of M1.  
Marxism-thaxis thus has the opportunity of becoming 
something even a bit higher level than the old M2.
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:10:44 -0600 (MDT) hans despain 
<HANS.DESPAIN-AT-m.cc.utah.edu> wrote:


> i would like to thank Andrew and Jerry for forwarding Andrew's comments.
> 
> Although i was very pleased to see Andrew Kliman's reply and comments, i 
> believe he overstates and over-reacts to Brewers comments in his 
> conclusion on who should publish attempts to "update and/or 
> resuscitate Marx".
> 
> Brewer conclusion is five-fold:
> 
> (1) Marx failed to influence what would come to be the origin of modern 
> economic theory; because his ideas became outdated before they were even 
> read (based on the idea that the "close" of Marx's system, volume three 
> [1894], did not apper until nearly 30 years after the incomplete first 
> volume [1867]) (138-9).
> 
> (2) Marx "added little or nothing useful to the classical heritage" (from 
> Smith to Mill) (139).
> 
> (3) Marx was a "magnificent failure" based on his own terms (this is 
> based on [a] the idea that the labor theory of value is faulty, collapsing 
> his theory of surplus-value, along with "the greater part of the 
> analysis of *Capital*"; and [b] the falling rate of profit is incorrect) 
> (140).
> 
> (4) Marxist literature is often not about history of economics, but a 
> dogmatic commitment to the word of Marx, history of economic journals
> need not concern themselves with such non-history (full quote is below).
> 
> (5) "If Marx's *Capital failed to achieve what he hoped and if economists 
> were right to ignore it, it does not necessarily follow that historians 
> of economics should do the same.  Historians must deal with the wider 
> impact of economic ideas (whatever their merits), as well as with the 
> development of economic theory in its own right.  Marx's economic ideas 
> deserve study because they are an integral part of a worldview that has 
> had an immense influence outside economics.  It was, of course, necessary 
> to study Marx's theory in order to establish that it was indeed a dead 
> end." (141).
> 
> With respect to claim (4) Brewer said:
> 
>  "In the eyes of its [Marxist's] practitioners, its 
> identity depends on faithful adherence to the words of the master.  
> Unlike other economists, Marxist economists habitually deny any 
> originality and claim that their newest idea is really to be found in 
> Marx.  The result is a form of continuous strip-mining of the most 
> trivial of Marx's jottings in search of quotations to support one point 
> of view or another.  There can be no objection to continued attempts to 
> modernize or resusciatate Marx's ideas, but they have nothing to do with 
> the *history* of economics and, therefore, should not be published in 
> journals devoted to the subject" (141).
> 
> First, i am not at all sure what Brewer has in mind here, i cannot recall 
> one article in HOPE that this would apply (i haven't read them all or 
> course)?  Second, if this does not apply to HOPE, then there is not much 
> threat here.  So that Brewer's comments can be interpreted as suggesting 
> that there is not much interest in the bulk of recent and current 
> marxian literature.
> 
> Moreover, HOPE or any other history of economic journal need not 
> necesarily concern themselves with where someone will publish "some 
> quotes and arguments brought forth that attempt to situate it as a 
> 'developemnt' of something Marx wrote" (as Andrew put it).  Whereby, it 
> seems to be that Brewer's comments can be interpreted as attempting to 
> avoid or not support "rational reconstructions".
> 
> Although i am in full agreement that the "systematic" exclusion of 
> Marxist literature is a very important issue which needs to be addressed; 
> and may have helped explain Brewer's questions about the negelect of Marx 
> himself.  Along with the idea that too much of the literature is based on 
> second hand literature.
> 
> i very much appreciated the comments on intellectual imperialism; which i 
> take to be a special (or not so special) case of ideology.  This is 
> something i especially would like to investigate.  Again this will pivot 
> on philosophy of science and methodological issues.  It is quite 
> unfortunate that there was no response along these lines.
> 
> i am not sure what is the "temporal single-system interpretation".  But 
> it is very surprising that there as not a serious attempt in defense of 
> Marx based on methodological issues.  Although i thought 
> Duncan Foley's response to be quite  well done, along with Takashi 
> Negishi's.  And there are a few other very interesting remarks.
> 
> In reading the responses, i got the feeling that they where all rushed, 
> and somewhat un-informed -- for example Samuel Hollander writes: 
> "Contributors to this minisymposium were informed that Anthnony brewer 
> had been commissioned to 'address the issue of how historians of 
> economics will approach reassessing Marx as an economist in response to 
> the shifting views of Marxism brought into play by the breakup of the 
> former Soviet Union, and the resultant realignment of Marxist thought' 
> (Letter from E. Roy Weintraub, 23 June 1993).  In fact, Brewer does not 
> directly deal with this matter and thus complicates our set task--to 
> focus our comments on the paper on 'the need, if any, for historians of 
> econmics to readdress Marx, to recliam Marx as it were now that the hold 
> of Marxist economics on views of Marx is more confused, more of a 
> problem'" (167).
> 
> A reponse to defend Marx based on "ideological" or "methodological" 
> premises would take much more space -- to develop Marx's own concept of 
> ideology or methodological commitments -- and more time to orginize 
> thoughts and arguments which would have necessarily gone beyond the 
> commits of Brewer, and/or to demonstrate why Brewer himself was faulty.
> 
> But this would have been quite important, and very much in phase with the 
> nature of the journal itself; and a direct demonstration against 
> Brewer's concluding remarks.
> 
> hans d.
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---