perhaps a change in venues for this important economic discussion
Hugh Williams
Pierre, John, et al,
Because no one has taken up the modest suggestion below
from the email of January 24 re. a turtle-paced winter discussion of the Appendices
of the AIRR text, I think what I'll do is try and introduce some of the 'ideas
and puzzles' surrounding the text to an Academia 'discussion group' where I've found there
has at times been much more responsiveness and attention among a broader audience to certain issues
raised over the past few years. It is not perfect but at times there does seem to be more signs of life ...
As I said below to Pierre specifically ... the AIRR text, in my view, goes a long way towards getting
crucial issues into the 'light'.
What is missing is a frank or more thorough discussion of the political context needed
for 'realization or implementation'. This in part is why I find the Chinese situation so relevant and important,
because as John Bellamy Foster (Monthly Review, July-August 2021) points out -
China as a post-revolutionary society is neither entirely capitalist nor entirely socialist.
Strictly speaking it would be naive to speak of it as 'anti-capitalist"; it is, however, seriously intent to have the interests of capital
subordinated to labor by means of a socialist political context. Here then, I should think, would be a society where there would be a keen interest in the two circuit
theory of economy ....
It seems to me that the Chinese have had to and very much are taking very seriously what your good text has characterized
as Peter Corbishley's summation (again, in the AIRR text's appendices) of the economic meta-problem expressed in Lonerganian terms
as this real social tension between "greed or ignorance" ....
Hugh
Subject: |
Re: [lonergan_l] Christian-Marxist Dialogue: On Continuing to Read Phil McShane |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 27 Jan 2026 12:25:05 -0400 |
| From: | Hugh Williams <hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca> |
| Reply-To: | loner...@googlegroups.com |
| To: | loner...@googlegroups.com |
Pierre,
let me add that as I laid my head down to rest
... I had a flash of insight because of your good and succinct response below.
as essential or sound as Lonergan's analytical framework is for understanding
the "two circuit economic law" to which we must adapt if we are to have a functioning economy,
Lonergan's theory of economy does not provide an adequate account of the political context for its realization,
so we have in effect an incomplete social theory. (Your AIRR text helped me to see this ...)
Thus perhaps the need for dialogue with marxism to help provide for that
in a way that ideologically holds up the priority of labor and not of capital (as we now have in much of the West),
i.e., capital is to serve labor.
This as I understand it would in the most general terms be in the best of the tradition of Popes Francis and Leo xiv
referenced earlier by John ....
Hugh
| Subject: | Re: [lonergan_l] as to some of the issues Hugh raises in discussing the eight appendices |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 24 Jan 2026 16:33:37 -0400 |
| From: | Hugh Williams <hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca> |
| Reply-To: | loner...@googlegroups.com |
| To: | loner...@googlegroups.com |
John,
Could we agree that a core group would have to have your text in hand,
say at least three beside the authors ....
while others could be looking in on the discussion and exchanges
and contributing on occasion when inspired.
So is it fair to ask for 'a show of hands' on this ...?
beginning with those who have the text at hand ....
thanks
Hugh
PIERRE WHALON
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lonergan_L" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lonergan_l+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/7239a7e4-fbab-458a-a3c9-b083b10b962e%40nbnet.nb.ca.