You said it much better than I did.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:12:10AM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Fighting a Republican party that passionately believes in mostly
> horrible things is pretty hard when you're a party of capital that,
> given its constituencies, has to act like the popular party
Carrol Cox wrote:
This is what I mean by saying leftists should give up the myths of DP
cowardice or stupidity. Assume that DP leadership knows what it is doing
and has as much courage as any given bunch of leaders from either party.
So they really mean to keep losing governorships and Congression
> Carrol Cox said:
>
> This is what I mean by saying leftists should give
> up the myths of DP
> cowardice or stupidity. Assume that DP leadership
> knows what it is doing
> and has as much courage as any given bunch of
> leaders from either party.
> Then if you still want to vote for Dean or Clark
Carrol Cox said:
This is what I mean by saying leftists should give up the myths of DP
cowardice or stupidity. Assume that DP leadership knows what it is doing
and has as much courage as any given bunch of leaders from either party.
Then if you still want to vote for Dean or Clark or whoever, fine
John Gulick wrote:
>
> It doesn't necessarily mean that "lesser-evilism" is
> tactically or strategically wrong-headed (or right-headed
> for that matter). But some intellectual consistency
> would be nice.
This is what I mean by saying leftists should give up the myths of DP
cowardice or stupidit
John Gulick wrote:
>
> Both of these groups are prepossesed with the most muddled of
> convictions -- willing on the one hand to entertain the
> most way-out single-note conspiracy theories about Iraq being
> about nothing other than enriching Halliburton and Bechtel,
I don't know or claim to know
Perelman said:
The Dean campaign might be more like the McCarthy campaign.
Gulick sez:
That's probably a better analogy. Both Dean and McCarthy are/were cut from
the same Rockefeller Republican mold, a mold that resonates with the habitus
of the liberal arts college-types who project all kinds of
The Dean campaign might be more like the McCarthy campaign. Neither
McCarthy nor McGovern were aggressive campaigners though.
I think that the McCarthy campaingn energized lots of young people, some
of whom moved to the left. Others became Dem. functionaries.
Hopefully some of the Deanies will
Michael Perelman wrote:
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am finding this discussion very
useful. My interest -- not necessarily support -- of Dean is that his
style might open up a critical discussion of Bush, showing other Dems.
that you can stand up to those bastards.
John Gulick:
Wha
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am finding this discussion very
useful. My interest -- not necessarily support -- of Dean is that his
style might open up a critical discussion of Bush, showing other Dems.
that you can stand up to those bastards. Except for Dennis K. and
Sharpton, no Dem
re to read this and ask
himself some questions. What will General Clark do to help this woman and
millions like her if he becomes president? What in his experience might
make him grasp the nature of her plight? Can anyone be more isolated from
the trials and tribulations of the real worl
Both agreement and disagreement here. Need to separate:
a) critiques of central planning per se
from
b) critiques of Stalin's version of it.
The Soviet Union for most of its life worked on the basis of Stalin's
version of a command economy, whereby, as Carrol puts it, production
decisions wer
I'd like to hear
>your response first.
>
>Andrew Kliman
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Forstater,
>Mathew
>Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:27 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:23411] RE: RE: Re:
om: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23422] RE: Re: Some questions
Mat Forstater wrote:
"Since when do Marxists and Sraffians suppress Marx or the study
of Marx?"
What is _Marx After Sraffa_? What is the "
e-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Forstater,
Mathew
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23411] RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: Some questions
Since when do Marxists and Sraffians suppress Marx or the study of
Marx?
All of my Marxist and
Drewk writes: >Roemer's "Analytical foundations of Marxian economic theory"
should be understood as part of an ideological attack on, and
effort to suppress, Marx's ideas in their original form. <
This may be the objective effect of Roemer's work, but I don't think it was
his intention. (I think
Some questions
by bantam
02 March 2002 04:16 UTC
Rob: Any social formation faces the need to allocate resources (including
labour) here rather than there. We've tried command economies and found
that, sans market signals, it couldn't be done where and when it was
tried - or at l
Since when do Marxists and Sraffians suppress Marx or the study of Marx?
All of my Marxist and Sraffian teachers (e.g., Shaikh, Gordon,
Garegnani, Eatwell) promoted the careful study of Marx. They always
provided logical and textual evidence for their interpretations and
disagreements, though one
A reply to Justin Schwartz's PEN-L:23401.
Justin, you've completely misrepresented me. I don't think Marx's
ideas are sacrosanct, holy writ, etc. I did not criticize Roemer
for disagreeing with Marx. I would never consider disagreement to
be an ideological attack or effort to suppress. There'
Putting a premium on rigor seems to be one of the silliest ideas ever
proposed in economics. Take reality, remove all of the concrete aspects,
represent that husk of reality as a mathematical equation, and see what
comes of it. All the while, make sure that you structure this model so
that nothi
>
>Roemer's "Analytical foundations of Marxian economic theory"
>should be understood as part of an ideological attack on, and
>effort to suppress, Marx's ideas in their original form.
Andrew, this kind of fundamentalist rhetoric is thesort of thing that makes
people not want topay any attentio
Roemer's "Analytical foundations of Marxian economic theory"
should be understood as part of an ideological attack on, and
effort to suppress, Marx's ideas in their original form.
For some reason, Roemer is regarded as a paragon of rigor, but he
actually resorts to a blatant bait-and-switch in or
Gil writes:
>Sabri writes, among other things,
>
>>P.S: I looked at Roemer's "Analytical foundations of Marxian
>>economic theory" but was not particularly impressed. It looks
>>like Varian's "Microeconomic analysis". By the way, Varian is
>>definitely better than Roemer when it comes to using T
Sabri writes, among other things,
>
>P.S: I looked at Roemer's "Analytical foundations of Marxian
>economic theory" but was not particularly impressed. It looks
>like Varian's "Microeconomic analysis". By the way, Varian is
>definitely better than Roemer when it comes to using TeX, that
>softwar
.>Sweezy saw the premise that "economic science" would exist under
>socialism as the ideological basis of authoritarian socialism.
>Supposedly production will be for use, and productive choices will be
>made politically. That can't be reduced to a science. (I think I've
>botched up the argument so
> Sweezy saw the premise that "economic science" would
> exist under socialism as the ideological basis of
> authoritarian socialism. Supposedly production will be
> for use, and productive choices will be made politically.
> That can't be reduced to a science. (I think I've
> botched up the argum
G'day Carrol,
> > Sabri, Marx's theory in question here is about value -- a form of
> social
> > relations peculiar to capitalism. As such, it would not have
> relevance
> > under socialism.
> >
>
> Sweezy saw the premise that "economic science" would exist under
> socialism as the ideological b
Carrol, Stalin pushed that line. The government would replace the
corporations and much would go on as before, except that the government
would work in the interest of the people instead of for profit.
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 09:09:51PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> Sabri, Marx's theory in question here is about value -- a form of social
> relations peculiar to capitalism. As such, it would not have relevance
> under socialism.
>
Sweezy saw the premise that "economic science" would exist under
socialism as the ideological bas
Michael wrote:
> Sabri, Marx's theory in question here is about value
> -- a form of social relations peculiar to capitalism.
> As such, it would not have relevance under socialism.
I agree. This is why I said: Wouldn't we still need Marxian or
_otherwise_ economic models, ?
By the way Ji
Sabri, Marx's theory in question here is about value -- a form of social
relations peculiar to capitalism. As such, it would not have relevance
under socialism.
Sabri Oncu wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> > Recasting Marx in algebraic, mathematical,
> > or precise numerical form, seems a bit foreig
> > Recasting Marx in algebraic, mathematical,
> > or precise numerical form, seems a bit foreign
> > to his overall project, which his understanding
> > the nature of capitalist society and the weaknesses
> > that will lead to the creation of a socialist state.
Sabri writes:
> Let us assume fo
Michael wrote:
> Recasting Marx in algebraic, mathematical,
> or precise numerical form, seems a bit foreign
> to his overall project, which his understanding
> the nature of capitalist society and the weaknesses
> that will lead to the creation of a socialist state.
Let us assume for a while th
Hi,
Could you please say me what is the definition of " Sociology of Economics"?
Is it a subdiscipline of economic science? What is its relationship with
economics? What is its status in economics departments? What is its history?
Mohammad
___
34 matches
Mail list logo
