>For instance, I have no problem with statistical data, but refuse to >reproduce
mainstream/orthodoxy practices and arguments "hidden behind thickets of
algebra". This is essentially a philosophical problem. My work is influenced by
Marxism in general, and Critical Realism in particular.
Marxism against mathematics? If we take a look on mid-XIX-century political economy, it is quite difficult to find an author so keen on using mathematics like Marx. Not every time successfull, sometimes even obsessed. But he failed not because of philisophical concepts ore problems. He failed because of his emigration to the only country in reach for the defeated revolutionary: And London may have been the best place for studying political economy, but in the XIXth century Britain was - all historians of mathematics confirm this - certainly not a good place for studying mathematics. Many of the best mathematicians hade to study stuff like law (Sylvester, Cayley) ore religion (Young). Their students left the discipline soon. Sylvester had his best time on John Hopkins University in the US.
In consequence Marx "mathematical adviser" Samuel Moore was an professional mathematician, but not capable to find out the structure of Marx mathematical problems. I tried to show this in an german articel on the volume II/14 of the complete edition of Marx-Engels-writings. This volume contains the long time mystified 132 -page manuscript out of 1875 on the mathematical treatment of the rate of profit and the rate of surpus. Marx wa s not able to deal with the mathematics of growth rates ore rates of change. Not in the continuous case - the derivative of the logarithm and so on - and not even in school-algebra case studies. He never made a clear definition of the rate of change of a magnitude and so every moment came back to calculate numerical examples. Not in the attempt to produce numerical examples as illustrations of his ideas, but - my interpretation - in the attempt to find out an unknown to him function: The function showing the influence of changig parameters on the rate of profit/the rate of surplus. The background was his fight with the "law" of falling rate of profit he tried to prove.
In case of Marx problems, basic algebra would have been sufficient to learn, that no necessary tendency towards a lower rate of profit can be deduced in general. In the case of dealing with I-O-Models, with the Cowles Commission treatment of allocation and production (Kornais "Anti-Equilibrium"), the attempts to use the experience of nonlinear dynamical systems in modeling selforganization of matter ore to use normal stochastics in analyzing modern capitalism - in all these cases more then basic training is needed. Not only to use the mathematicals instruments properly, but to find out, where their limits are. (Easyer to pose this task in general, then to solve it in one special case.)
Hard core mathematical, economic and statistical training is needed. And quite a lot of history too. No easy to bring these things together,=2 0when there is no real chance for beeing paid for such research. Even in job in the better unions is not designed to analyse in cold blood the advances and costs of capitalism. Even in theory without mutual help and cooperation there is no chance of change for better.
Sebastian ________________________________________________________________________ AOL eMail auf Ihrem Handy! Ab sofort können Sie auch unterwegs Ihre AOL email abrufen. Registrieren Sie sich jetzt kostenlos.