Louis,
Well, michael probably does not want us to
get into some kind of OPE-L discussion (and
I suspect you don't really want to either, Louie),
but what you have quoted in no way implies
what you have deciphered from it, although I
think you are probably correct about what Steve's
views of things are.
In short, although it is widely and deeply entrenched
out there that he did, Marx never labeled what he had
as a "labor theory of value." He always referred to the
"theory of value." Steve's remarks are perfectly consistent
with Marx and perfectly consistent with being a socialist,
even if he is not one and just some reprobate social
democratic semi-Post Keynesian (he has a lot of
criticisms of Post Keynesians, although he comes closer
to identifying with them than with any other postion, his
critical remarks in that regard engendering considerable
discussion during the seminar on the Post Keynesian
Thought (pkt) list, big surprise).
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:25 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:9595] Re: Interesting new book?
> >Louis, your comment re the welfare state is intriguing. Resisting
> >caricature, what exactly is Keen's justification for claiming that to
move
> >beyond the welfare state would be disastrous?
> >
> >Michael K.
>
> I'll let Steve speak for himself:
>
> "Post Keynesian economics is thus not as eclectic as both its major
> proponents and opponents believe; it has merely lacked a clearly
> articulated theory of value, and an axiomatic basis derived from that
> theory of value. Both of these exist in Marx, and can be adopted by Post
> Keynesians without fear of contamination by the labor theory of value, and
> without abandoning any of the valued aspects of Keynes's philosophical
> approach to economics."
>
>
ftp://csf.colorado.edu/econ/authors/Keen.Steve/A_Marx_for_Post_Keynesians.tx
t
>
> In other words, he is an advocate of welfare state capitalism, not
> socialism. Like many other left economists who find capitalism a nasty
> business, there is a tendency to embellish what is basically an
> accomodationist approach with a dollop or two of Marxish thought or
> terminology. Mostly, I find this sort of thing harmless unless the author
> is claiming the mantle of Marx, which to Steve's credit he does not do. As
> far as him wringing his hands over the terrible tragedy of Bolshevism, I
> can't come up with anything since the archives for the old Marxism list
> were flushed down the toilet after the Spoons Collective postmodernists
> gave us the boot.
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
>
