A Commentary on the Passing Scene by
Robert Paul Wolff
rwolff@afroam.umass.edu
Saturday, March 1, 2014
A GOOD READ
I may be the last person on earth to discover that Paul Krugman's blog is well worth reading on a regular basis, but if any of you who visit me here do not know that, you can find Krugman at this link.
I don't mean this in a hostile sense, but I cannot fathom how one can appreciate a Keynesian blog, when one is a Marxist in economics. Marx shows in Vol II and III that consumer consumption is the pinnacle of economic health.
Oh come on ! I admire Smith and Ricardo, I think Keynes' insights were valuable, I read and enjoyed Micheal Oakeshott, as well as Max Weber and Emile Durkheim and Karl Mannheim, none of whom was a Marxist. I do not think Marx would have considered Krugman a "vulgar economist," his term for the time-servers who made lousy arguments offering ideololocial rationalizations of capitalism [not ever a term he applied to Smith and Ricardo, by the way.]
I think that analogy is not quite correct. Or, at the very least, It's not addressing what I meant. I'll confess I was not clear, so I shall clarify.
I too enjoy many of the authors you've mentioned, and appreciate their insights, but so far as I can tell, those authors were developing theory, whereas - the few times I've read Krugman's blog and the MANY times I've read his NYTimes op-eds - Krugman is applying an already developed theory to particular problems. And it's in that regard that I can't quite fathom why one would enjoy his writing. In the same sense that if one applied Lamarckianism every few weeks to breakthroughs in biological science, the insights would be unfulfilling and incorrect, albeit reading about the development of Lamarckian theory is quite fascinating.
On the off chance you've never read it, Michael Roberts has a fanstic Marxist economics blog, that wrestles with current events. As does Richard Wolff.
http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
So to be clear, I don't have a problem with reading Keynes or the development of Keynesian theory. I'm just a bit confused why a Marxist would be interested in the application of Keynesian theory to present particular problems.
I don't mean this in a hostile sense, but I cannot fathom how one can appreciate a Keynesian blog, when one is a Marxist in economics. Marx shows in Vol II and III that consumer consumption is the pinnacle of economic health.
ReplyDeleteOh come on ! I admire Smith and Ricardo, I think Keynes' insights were valuable, I read and enjoyed Micheal Oakeshott, as well as Max Weber and Emile Durkheim and Karl Mannheim, none of whom was a Marxist. I do not think Marx would have considered Krugman a "vulgar economist," his term for the time-servers who made lousy arguments offering ideololocial rationalizations of capitalism [not ever a term he applied to Smith and Ricardo, by the way.]
ReplyDeleteI think that analogy is not quite correct. Or, at the very least, It's not addressing what I meant. I'll confess I was not clear, so I shall clarify.
ReplyDeleteI too enjoy many of the authors you've mentioned, and appreciate their insights, but so far as I can tell, those authors were developing theory, whereas - the few times I've read Krugman's blog and the MANY times I've read his NYTimes op-eds - Krugman is applying an already developed theory to particular problems. And it's in that regard that I can't quite fathom why one would enjoy his writing. In the same sense that if one applied Lamarckianism every few weeks to breakthroughs in biological science, the insights would be unfulfilling and incorrect, albeit reading about the development of Lamarckian theory is quite fascinating.
On the off chance you've never read it, Michael Roberts has a fanstic Marxist economics blog, that wrestles with current events. As does Richard Wolff.
http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
So to be clear, I don't have a problem with reading Keynes or the development of Keynesian theory. I'm just a bit confused why a Marxist would be interested in the application of Keynesian theory to present particular problems.
p.s. I'm reading and enjoying your 'Understanding Rawls'.
ReplyDelete