On Fri, 13 Jan 1995 08:33:04 -0800 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Evan Jones writes:
>> ... The character, fate of GM, IBM
>> or any other real-life business entity, big or small, is of
>> absolutely no consequence to neoclassical economics. This herculean
>> detachment is what gives NC economics its elegance and its longevity.
>
>It strikes me that one could say the same thing about Marxian
>economics. Its criticism of capitalism stands independently of the
>rise or fall of any particular "real-life entity"....
To my mind, Marx starts with this high level of abstraction and
then works down (or up, depending on one's view) to the level of
particular "real life entities." First, he tried to understand
the abstractions of "wage-labor in general" and "capital in
general." Then (in volume II) he starts dealing with the
particularities -- which are understood _in the context of_
the abstract framework of vol. I. This continues in vol. III,
which is even more down-to-earth and dealing with real-life
entities (e.g., financial markets). He never finished that,
but it seems to me the next step would be dealing with
specific entities, again in the context of what had been
understood before.
More concretely, Marx starts with the general tendencies of
capitalism. Marxists have followed this by talking about
historically-specific eras ("stages") of capitalist develop-
ment, which can best be understood in terms of the general
tendencies. Then the specific firms can be understood:
for example (and this is an example rather than something
I believe in fully), the fall of IBM might be understood
in terms of the transition from "fordism" to "post-fordism."
Of course, a complete understanding would bring in the details
of IBM's specific history (its founder, its strategies, etc.)
Gil is right that both neoclassical economics and
Marxian economics start at a very abstract level as
opposed to some other kinds of economics (some institutionalism?)
that starts with inductive logic, generalizing from specific
cases, at least at the level of mode of presentation.
One difference is that Marxian economics sees a
dialectic between deduction and induction. "Abstract
capital" for Marx is a representation of the perceived
shared characteristic of empirical, particular, capitals.
See his methodological introduction in the GRUNDRISSE.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti."
(Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing
Dante.
