Please stop about what I don't understand. I understand perfectly that Marxism presents itself -- now ludicrously -- as the revolutionary theory of a proletarian revolution, and that Marxist critique of political economy is supposed to explain how capitalism operates and why it is unstable and transient. I taught this stuff for _decades_, have published on it (favorably) extensively, and believed it once too. I also know that bourgeois economics -- political economy no longer exists -- is intended to predict and explain the capitalist economy without being part of a radical challenge to it, and in some cases with the goal of helping government and business cope with its vissittides. OK, we are clear on what I understand now, right? Like I said to SHane, I can understand and disagree. This isn't self-evident material.
--- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>
> Part of the problem is that Justin doesn't
> understand the purposes of
> Marxism, and Marxist political economy , > 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.
>
You were the one who brought up price theory. I didn't say failure of Marxist economics to predict prices was a big deal. No one can predict prices.
> If Marxism already explained the origin of profits,
> what do we need a new,
> later theory for that ?
Because it does so using termsd taht are redundant, incoherent, and with an apparatus that sidelines radical economists who might be doing something useful into pointless scholasticism. You don't see Dean Baker or Tom Weisskopf or Sam Bowles or Nancy Folbre tying themselves into knots over value theory. It's a shibbolith among religiously orthodox Marxists.
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.
Yea, like those bourgeois apologists I just named. Or like me, because I'm such a big defender of capitalism.
Charles thinks there aint room in town for more than one radical economics,a nd that since Marx got there fustest, he own the place. Foolishness.
>
> 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
> ?
Like I said.
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 ?
Because Marxist theory did it badly and if you stick with Marxist theory you get tangled up in rubbish.
>
> 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.
Be that as it may. Marx has no coherent crisis theory.
The best Marxisn crises theories, like Brenner's and Weisskopf's -- and Brenner at least still considers himserf to be a Marxist -- don't use value theory.
>
> 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 ?
Marxism ain't doing so good in that department either, Charles. Right now, we need to understand how things work in a way that might be useful to a future but presently rather hypothetical radical movement, and also ina way that furthers reform goals, like saving Social Security.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com