OPE-L (was Re: Krugman on Marx)

[James Devine]

>I don't think there is any GOOD way.  The *easiest* thing is to
>look at the 2 volume _History of Marxian Economics_ by MC Howard
>and JE King (WWI is the dividing point between the 2 vols.), but
>I find it to be a tendentious and very incomplete work.  Jim
>Devine wrote a review of vol. 2, and said, if I remember, that
>the value theory section should have been called "The Victory of
>Sraffa over Marx."  That about says it.  Moreover, Howard and
>King say nothing about the *current* value theory debate, perhaps
>because this debate was just beginning to unfold when vol. 2 was
>completed.
>
>Unfortunately, there's little else, so I would recommend that you
>read H&K -- but critically and with the realization that it is
>already out of date.

I also reviewed vol. I of that book. See _Science and Society_, 58(1)
Spring 1994: pp. 106-8 (for vol. II) and 55(4) Winter 1991-92: pp. 489-91
(for vol. I).

H&K present a totally "neo-Ricardian" Sraffian understanding of Marxian
economics, straight out of Ian Steadman or Joan Robinson. 

BTW, I want to endorse Drewk's commitment to issues of high theory. The
trick -- and it is absolutely necessary that we pull this trick off -- is
to learn from high theory to inform more practical investigations and
practice itself. We also need to learn from practical investigations and
practice in order to inform high theory. We don't have to do all of this
right away since it will be a long time before the rev. (and not everyone
has to do the same stuff). 

Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html