From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sat Dec 13 2003 - 10:45:43 EST
Ian --
> I must admit that I find it unlikely that the share is determined
> in any important way by the class struggle, just as I do not think the
> detailed income distribution (e.g., lognormal lower regime, Pareto
> property-income regime) is much affected by it. That is why
> I'm interested in systemic explanations, rooted in the relations of
> production, such as that advanced by Farjoun and Machover, rather
> than explanations rooted in conjectural political interventions collected
> under the rubric of the class struggle. But I have an open mind on
> the question.
* Can't class struggle -- which, after all, is rooted in the relations
of production -- have a role within systemic explanations?
All hitherto history, after all, is a history of what?
* _If_ there is a relatively stable wage to profit share, what
are the 'systemic' causes 'absent the class struggle'?
[Paul C: could you try answering that question as well?
I don't really understand, based on what you wrote before,
what F&M and/or yourself, are identifying as the cause
or causes for this empirical relationship. I need to grasp
your answer to that before I can comment further. Thanks.]
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 16 2003 - 00:00:00 EST