I agree with Simon. I think he has put it very well indeed. alfredo. > > It seems to me that what we call it doesn't much matter. But there are a > whole host of unresolved issues about how contemporary capitalism works. > For example: > 1. What determines the value of labour power and wages? > 2. What determines the value of money? > 3. What is the predominant pattern today of technical progress? Has it > changed? If so, why? > 4. Why has the rate of profit been rising in major capitalist economies > since 1982 or so? > 5. (If you believe in the distinction) what are the consequences of the > continuous steady rise in unproductive labour over the last third of the > 20C? > 6. Why is inflation so low? (Or, why was it so high in the 70s and 80s?) > 7. What are the economic mechanisms of imperialism? > 8. If finance is an unproductive sector, why is it so predominant? > 9. How do financial derivatives and associated products connect with value > theory? > 10. What determines exchange rate movements? > (And more generally: > 11. Why is Marxism so male? (Look for example at OPE-L.) > 12. What do we mean by socialism, and how do we think it might work? > And I could go on.) > These are serious analytical issues and require serious work. Marxism > surely has to be more than just a political rhetoric. Or, there's not a lot > > of point in trying to change the world if we don't understand it. I guess > this is to say that you can call it what you will - economics, Marxist > economics, political economy, critique of political economy or whatever > - the questions remain and still require our answers. Don't they? > > Simon >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT