G'day all, Seems to me that the coherent critique we lefties have available to us has four other political problems, too: 1) it has easily been dressed up as the optimal but problematic 'hidden hand' versus the demonstrably spotty history of the social democratic state as corruptible and bureaucratic 'dead hand'; (2) it is difficult to sustain it empirically [although if it were right, I reckon the world would look a lot like it actually does]; (3) it suggests a revolutionary politics insofar as the differential ownership and control of the means of production must be stopped [which involves expropriation, which might involve coercion - but maybe another decade or two of mega-mergers and super-privatisation might see the whole lot of us in a very different relationship to the MoP], and [4] one critique doesn't necessarily lead to one programme [market socialists like Nove and Schweikert would disagree with councilists like Albert and Hahnel, who would disagree with Leninists - who are always bagging each other, like the Trots and the Stalinists]. As we know, these disagreements are often extremely intense and often definitively impossible to resolve. The defenders of the status quo need defend but one order, but progressives have the difficult job of proffering competing scenarios. Solidarity, the left's only realistic modus operandi, is actually a lot easier for the individualistic right - and an economic position that does not offer currently dominant notions of freedom and the individual, neat numbers, untraumatic programmes and a solid linear prescription, is pushing shit uphill. And then we have the problem of rhetorical association, eh? Everyone's convinced the leftie critique is the thin edge of the gulag archipelago wedge. We are nipped in the bud, because people are convinced the flower will be bureaucratic centralism, I think. And maybe we do need to do a little work on some of our common premises. Doug O. suggested the other day, for instance, that we could best keep the law of value by allowing for Schumpetarian moments of innovation and associated fleeting moments of non-labour-endowed value. Would such an approach, for instance, defeat widely accepted wholesale rebuttals of the law of value (eg. Stigler and Boulding)? Yours musing incoherently, Rob. ---------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:6859] RE: Old "foggies"/"fogeys" > Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 07:06:33 -0700 > >The winnowing of the left from economics is hardly surprising if one steps >back for a moment from who or what economics claims to be and do and >considers instead how economics is historically situated as a discipline >within the university and within society -- that is to say, if one takes a >historical materialist view of economics. Economics is a sub-genre of >history. It has appropriated to itself the authoritative posture of the >natural sciences, from which position its objects of study -- the historical >relationships in society -- necessarily are recast as nature-like. > >If one accepts a priori that private property, wage labour and market >exchange are *essentially* natural, rather than historical, features of >economic life, then one is reduced to higgling over their contingent weights >and prices. The mathematics is seductive. It begins soothingly, "if we >bracket out [for the sake of argument] history . . ." and it concludes >sternly with a taboo against bringing history back in. But the real scandal >occurs later with the supplementary concession that history may be appended >to the [supposedly 'real'] analysis. Thus for economics, history is a >contingent appendage while private property, wage labour and market exchange >are essential. > >One need only read Lionel Robbins' Essay on the Nature and Significance of >Economic Science to see precisely how and why historical materialism is >banished as *non-economics*. "Marxist economics", however, is permitted to >play the game by the rules, the first of which -- the very definition of the >object of "economic science" -- is to concede the universality of private >property, wage labour and market exchange. > >Michael Perelman wrote: > >>Peter is correct that radical economics is not reproducing itself. The >>space for new left economists is limited to a few liberal arts colleges, >>Catholic institutions, and less prestigious state colleges. For the most >>part, these do not have graduate programs. >> >>During the '60s, students demanded something other than standard >>neoclassical fare. In order to maintain majors, departments had to hire a >>few lefties to make their programs more interesting. I was hired for this >>purpose. > >regards, > >Tom Walker >http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm > >
