This is not productive Jum. Maybe the thread has run its course.
In other messages of yours that I've responded to, you've >implied that those who don't accept your vision of analytical Marxism were >religious in some way. I don't think this. > >BTW, I find religious attitudes all the time in economics. For example, >there's the worship of the market (the U of Chicago) . . . Of course. However, it >does make sense to quote the so-called "Master": Marx's theory forms a >unified whole that differs from the standard academic orthodoxy and is >often >misinterpreted. Surer, but one only argues from quotes to establish a scholarly, not a substantive point. I quote from marx for thsi purpose all the time, as I'm a MArx scholar. In fact, a lot of people misrepresent Marx. I have poor >memory for quotes, so I don't do it, especially since it's quite easy for >someone to quote like crazy and still misinterpret Marx (as Jon Elster, >among others, does so often). (As my old friend Steve Zeluck used to say, >"the devil can quote scipture." Elster is much better when he does >micro-theory than when he writes about Marx.) > > >>Is Marxism a cult . . . > > > Your word, not mine.< > >what?? you said the following in the message I responed to: >>>the >shrinking >number of adherents increasingly resemble a threatened cult<<< I see the >word "cult" there. Or am I blind? No, but you miss the difference between a simile and a statement of fact. > What evidence do you have for this being a >"increasing proportion"? Subjective impressions. > >Often, the folks who quote Marx all the time are not doing it for the >religious motives that you attribute to them. The history of economic (and >political-economic) thought is a well-known and respectable field. And I will argue scholarship with Marx scholars happily till I am blue in the face. > > >We have to avoid this false dichomy of "reasonable people" vs. >"fundamentalists." We also have to avoid fundamentalism. > >BTW, as Lakatos and Kuhn and others have pointed out, it is quite >reasonable >for scientists to cling to core propositions "even in the face of >overwhelming contrary argument and experience." Sometimes. Depends onw hether the reserach program is degenerating. I think the value theory RP is degeneating, and Marxism asa RP is in poor shape, albeit for understandable historical reasons. Similarly, >Marxian economics can use the true-by-definition law of value to understand >the world. > I don;ts ee it for reasons I have explained. jks _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
