====================== HES POSTING ================== 
 
It seems to me that this debate shares a lot in common with the earlier  
"Marx, subsistence and surplus" debate.  In each case, as I understand it,  
one perspective is that certain readily identifiable flaws are so  
significant as to materially damage the relevance or applicability of the  
overall body of thought. On the other hand, in each case the opposing view  
is that the, acknowledged, shortcomings are merely illustrative of the  
need for further research, perhaps inspired by the criticisms. 
 
My own impression is that, broadly, neoclassical thought has more 
validity, but that marxist writers are, again broadly, more willing to 
acknowledge shortcomings in the current state of the school's theories.   
 
As an important footnote, I acknowledge that my formal knowledge of 
academic marxist thought is sketchy at best. 
 
Mike Robison 
Michigan State University 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]