Introduction

The recent criticism of the neoclassical approach to economic analysis has come from a number of diversified areas. There has been a tendency to view these competing theories as a homogeneous group. This is correct in the sense that all present negative criticism of orthodox theory as represented either by Arrow-Debreu or the aggregate production function simplifications of the “neo-neoclassics.” From this “negative” homogeneity it has been suggested that all can be grouped with the name of Marx or considered as neo-Marxist (Harcourt and Nell, 1970).

Strict Marxists, however distinguish their own positions, first on the grounds of theoretical differences, but more importantly, on prescriptions for social change. Thus the anomaly that while all the non-neoclassical theories are said to be neo-Marxian, only “true” Marxist theory is supposed to possess the basic requirements necessary for valid political assessments of economic reality and to yield meaningful implications for social change. This chapter considers the post-Keynesian and Marxist approaches, and attempts to show that while the two lines have a surprisingly large number of theoretical similarities, they are only superficial. There is, however a strong common ground to be found between them and it is precisely in the implications of the two approaches for social change.

For some Keynesians this should not be surprising since Joan Robinson showed long ago that Keynes's theory could have what she jokingly called a distinctly “pinkish” hue. The implicit contention is that the affinity between Keynes and Marx, surprisingly, turns out to lie in the implications for social change rather than in the theoretical underpinning.