Part of the problem is that Justin doesn't understand the purposes of Marxism, and Marxist political economy , and the different purpose of bourgeois economics. This is related to his failure to understand that Marxism emphasizes the unit of theory and practice He assigns Marxism bourgeois purposes, and then says it has made no progress in advancing those bourgeois purposes.
The purpose of Marxist political economy is to describe capitalist dynamics in a way that aids ending it and moving on to a new system._Capital_ is misunderstood if not read as a continuation and in unity with _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_, etc. The purpose of bourgeois economics is to describe capitalist dynamics, and aid the capitalists in retaining, maintaining and running capitalism.
So, with respect to the comments below, how does "explaining" prices help to organize the overthrow of capitalism ? It doesn't much, so explaining precise prices is not a Marxist object or purpose. It's "failure" to "explain" prices is merely not doing what it is not tying to do.
If Marxism already explained the origin of profits, what do we need a new, later theory for that ? The latter theory is redundant and superfluous. Except , of course, the bourgeois academics had to develop an anti- and non- Marxist theory so that lots of people wouldn't become Marxists in politics.
The loopiness of Justin's thinking here is evident in his reversing or inverting what the common sense question is. The Marxist theory came _first_ in history. The logical question would be why do we need the _later_ theory to do the same thing the Marxist theory already did ? Same thing with no. 3. How odd that Justin questions the need for the _earlier_ Marxist theory, when the obvious question is why did we need neo-classical theory to do something Marxism already did ?
On #4 , I tend to think Marx's Absolute Law of Capitalist Accumulation in Vol. I has more importance for Marx than the Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall and crises from Vol. III.That's why he made sure he got the Absolute Law in what he published in his lifetime. It was more important to his purposes, than any theory of the business cycle. That's probably why he didn't bother to leave a clearly developed theory of the business cycle, because he didn't want those using his approach to get bogged down in it exactly what bourgeois economists try to bog Marxism down in ( as here)
There is a secular , not cyclical, pattern of mass poverty and unemployment which is explained by Marx's reasoning in Vol. I involving value theory. The secular mass poverty and unemployment are more important issues for the working class ( why they have an interest in overthrowing capitalism) than the periodic increases in same in crises.
We have to stand Justin off his head and onto his feet here, reverse his questions. The questions are why do we need neo-classical theory to do what Marxism already did ( except to get students' minds off of Marxism, as Brad D. is trying to do) ? And how does neo-classical or neo-Ricardian theory help in the historic Marxist mission of world socialist revolution ?
Charles
^^^^^^
andie nachgeborenen
1) Explain prices (on one view) -- by showing the poiunt around which long term prices tend to fluctuate. It does a poor job of this and is not necessary for the purpose, that's what the Sraffans showed.
2) More importantly explain the origin of profits and the existence of exploitation. Here it does a better job but it is still not necessary. In particular, you can show taht there are profits without ever referring to value, simply because of differential ownership (Roemer, Schweickart) and that there's exploitation without reducing all value to labor values or indeed without saying that all profits represent value.
3) The theory is supposed to explain the laws of motion of capitalsim, the incentive to accumulate no matter what and at all costs. But neoclassical theory does fine at this.
4) Finally the theory is supposed to explain the capitalist tendency towards crises. But Marx never worked out a coherent crisis theory. The efforts to do one in terms of value theory via the f=tendency of ther rate of profit to fall are unpersuasive. Berttrer versions, using geberal Marxian assumptions and tool, like Brenners' (my fave) or Weisskopf or Gordon, don't use value talk.
So the main point is that where value talk is coherent and even where it is useful it is not necessary. ANd there has been no progress, I mean NONE, in value theory in 100 or more years.
It's just a religious attachment to the master's Word that keeps some Marxist reciting these formulae.
jks