Justin wrote:
>I don't think the AMs invented rigor in Marxist analysis: Marx invented it.
If so, then the AM school doesn't seem to have anything to distinguish
itself from other schools of Marxism that avoid dogmatism and text-quoting.
>I agree that rigor cannot be reduced to use of general equilibrium theory
>or multipath causal analysis or the use of any particular set of theories
>or techniques. Rigor is a matter of using terms with a definite and
>ascertainable meaning, making your assumptions clear and explicit, darwing
>conclusions that actually follow from the premises, being alert to
>plausible objections, respecting ascertainable empirical facts, avoiding
>moralistic or political grandstanding, in short, arguing in
>a self-respecting way. Jim in fact does this in his scholarly work. I
>call that analysis, but if Jim doesn't, that's OK with me too.
That's not what the dictionary calls "analysis," i.e., the breaking of
wholes into parts.
>Jim has a particular thing about Roemer, having written several fine
>papers on him. This is understandable, as he and Roemer are both
>economists, for their sins. However, I think this distorts his picture of
>what the AMs were about, and I also think he is mistaken about R himself.
>It distorts his picture because R was an extreme version of the he-man,
>supertechnical, me-sophisticated approach (still is), much more so than
>Cohen or Elster, etc.
"me-sophisticated"?
>... Frankly, Jim's stuff has a touch of this, from a nonspecialist's
>perspective.
that's hitting below the belt.
>However, R is mot al [not as?] worthless as Jim suggests, even on his own
>terms. He makes calims for his results that they do not warrant. But they
>are deep results--there is an economist at Wesleyean, I forget his name,
>Gary Something, who has written couple of good papers, one in Economics &
>Philosophy and the other in Science & Society, about five years ago,
>expaling what holds water and what doesn't, in R's results. ...
Gil Skillman? A smart guy, but he's got the AM tendency to interpret Marx's
CAPITAL not as Marx would interpret (in terms of dialectical method) but in
a somewhat shallow and linear way. As so many do, he sets up a straw-Marx
and then knocks it down.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
