> I also probably took Robinson to task for ignoring the class struggle.We can criticize neoclassical economics all we want, but it will rule until the rule of capital is seriously challenged. I doubt that Robinsoncould see this, bu!
> t then again the times were different in 1971 than today. Paul Sweezy sent me a nice, handwritten and detailed rejection letter, saying that my essay was a bit too technical for MonthlyReview. I doubt that this could have been the case, especially since Robinson's essay itself would be considered pretty opaque by thevast majority of MR readers then and now. And even in 1971 I could write clearly and for a general audience. I was disappointed withthe rejection, having just written a 50-page paper on the Cambridge Controversies for a graduate school seminar. But the letter from Sweezywas so friendly that I determined to make his aquaintance. Happy to send a pdf of Robinson's essay to anyone who asks me.
I have that Robinson essay in the Jesse Schwartz edited book 'The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism' from 1978 IIRC. It's a pretty cool document of its time (the whole book I mean), when radical economics was really thriving and self-confident. There was no problem having articles from all (heterodox) sides of the Sraffa value controversies side by side, having a productive discussion. It has some early Anwar Shaikh, and that Freddy Perlman essay Carrol justifiably likes so much. Geoff Harcourt reviews the Cambridge capital controversies and what they mean at a less rarefied level. EK Hunt with a critique of neoclassical welfare economics. It's all good stuff.
I don't suppose you still have a copy of your own piece lying around somewhere?
Mike