tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post2925308651432115105..comments2023-08-29T01:27:13.772-07:00Comments on Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare: Why PoMo is Self-Defeating (iv)Magpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-47891711930783510842014-04-08T00:11:49.203-07:002014-04-08T00:11:49.203-07:00Thanks for the additional color and context regard...Thanks for the additional color and context regarding Pilkington. As I said, I tend to ignore anything he writes.Tao Jonesinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10041034009270339963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-35846227991949223832014-04-05T22:48:36.982-07:002014-04-05T22:48:36.982-07:00Tao
I understand your doubt about Pilkington (one...Tao<br /><br />I understand your doubt about Pilkington (one never knows with that guy), but I say this with absolute certainty: he claims to be both PoMo and PoKe. I am a witness to that.<br /><br />Check his comments on this thread (Corey Robin's blog) pay special attention also to the comments by a Jeff Doyler ("So, a postmodern modernist. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis"), which seems to coincide with your own point ("he is not PoMo as both MMT and PoKe offer grand narratives, something that PoMo theorizes as invalid"):<br /><br /><br />Philip Pilkington May 15, 2013 at 3:06 pm #<br />...<br />@Doyle<br /><br />I’m not a libertarian. If you want a label maybe postmodern-Keynesian or something like that. (I hope labels…).<br /><br /><br /><br />Philip Pilkington May 15, 2013 at 3:32 pm #<br />...<br />@ Jeff Doyler<br /><br />I’m certainly NOT a libertarian. I’m a Keynesian basically (Post-Keynesian, to be precise). I don’t believe in value theories at all. So, I guess that makes, I don’t know, a postmodern-Keynesian or something.<br /><br /><br /><br />Jeff Doyler May 15, 2013 at 4:33 pm #<br /><br />Thanks for the response. So, a postmodern modernist. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis, but in a progressive, reactionary, or static direction? As Private Eye would say, I think we should be told. Cheers.<br /><br /><br /><br />pilkingtonphil May 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm #<br /><br />Doyler<br /><br />I like things that work. I’m a macro economist first and foremost. And I don’t like things that hide dysfunctionality under metaphysical cloaks. My politics? I’m a bleeding heart, naturally. But I consider them pretty secondary. What works is usually non-ideological, I find.<br /><br />http://coreyrobin.com/2013/05/13/critics-respond-to-nietzsches-marginal-children/<br /><br />----------<br /><br />If memory serves, he's also claimed to be PoMo and post-structuralist at Social Democracy for the 21st Century and at his own blog (but I can't pin point the precise link).<br /><br />----------<br /><br />Incidentally, there is a short exchange between Jeff Doyler (whom Pilkington addresses later) and Corey Robin. Doyler asks Robin "Why do you say Pilkington is 'from the left'?"<br /><br />That's a good question.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-78731208249346430742014-04-05T16:30:20.377-07:002014-04-05T16:30:20.377-07:00I am no fan of PP. When I still allowed myself to...I am no fan of PP. When I still allowed myself to be sucked into arguments with hacks like him, well, I had several arguments with him (especially over at Naked Capitalism).<br /><br />But PP is not a PoMo advocate. I don't think he is even PoKe. As best I can remember he is an MMT advocate, but since I generally have avoided what he writes for several years now, maybe he is Post Keynesian.<br /><br />But he is not PoMo as both MMT and PoKe offer grand narratives, something that PoMo theorizes as invalid.<br /><br />All that said, I think your ultimate criticism of PP is absolutely correct--that he is no different from McCloskey because they only disagree on the means, not the end-- and it should apply to people like Yves Smith, Robert Reich (especially that guy!), and Steve Keen (and probably Bill Black, Michael Hudson and James Galbraith, but I just don't feel like going there right now). It is not clear to me that people even consider what they mean by "capitalism," let alone compare the "capitalism" we have today to that definition so that they can even question what they are actually defending. The fact is that capitalism is not what it purports to be, and I believe it has never been what it purports to be. Capitalism has never been about capital (i.e., the principal) but about compounding interest.Tao Jonesinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10041034009270339963noreply@blogger.com