[ show plain text ]
Re #2725:
>Are Leontiev's viterupative comments against Luxemburg completely
>politically motivated as (as Richard Day has shown) the Stalinists
>themselves had under the guidance of Varga adopted an underconsumptionist
>theory of crisis which was closer to Luxemburg's than Bukharin's
>disproportionality theory
or Hilferding's disproportionality theory or, perhaps, Lenin's
disproportionality theory (what do you think, Paul?) or, above all, Tugan's
disproportionality theory.
>Luxemburg's theory does have fatalist implications,
>though of course splendid rebel that she was, she did not herself accept
>them.
What does exactly "fatalist" mean? That capitalism automatically will
collapse? That capitalism "fatally" needs crises? That the crises in
capitalism are in some sense "lawful"?
Alejandro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:43 EDT