Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33])
          by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP
	  id HAA06675 for <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:48:03 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from jmote@localhost)
	by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3/SAS.03)
	id JAA16869 for socgrad@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:48:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: jmote@sas.upenn.edu (Jonathan E Mote)
Message-Id: <199710061348.JAA16869@mail2.sas.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Marxian Theory: Continuing Validities
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:48:01 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <199710061144.HAA23834@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> from "Thomas F Brown" at Oct 6, 97 07:44:37 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I second Thomas Brown's thoughts.  While I agree that there is still 
validity in marxian theory (although I do not consider myself "marxian"), I 
say this as a former student of such Marxian economists as Anwar Shaikh, 
Duncan Foley and David Gordon.  Theirs is (or was in the case of the late 
David Gordon) a marxian analytic updated for contemporary capitalism.  
What TR Young put forward on the list is more akin to unreasoned polemic, 
as opposed to a more rigorous analysis. 

Jonathon Mote


Thomas F Brown wrote:
> 
> 
> Reads more like Marxian dogma than Marxian theory. I hope that your 
> classroom presentation is more nuanced. Academia doesn't need any 
> more utopian ideologues undermining the legitimacy of basic research 
> in the eyes of the general public. 
> 
> 
>