From: Phil Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Jan 01 2004 - 21:01:13 EST
>Hi Phil. Happy new year! > >Couldn't Marx's analysis of capitalism in _Capital_, >along with the critique of political economy therein, >[if examined in isolation] also be said to be "dismal >science"? To take an example from Volume I (since I >know you prefer that to Volume III), even though the >"general law of capitalist accumulation" represents an >alternative to Malthusian theory, what -- if anything -- >tells us that it isn't *also* "dismal science"? > >In solidarity, Jerry > > Hi Jerry Happy New Year. The last one was pretty dismal. This one could be even worse. I am am not sure what this 'historical physics' approach has got to do with Marx. He certainly discusses the centralization of capital (CI ch25 s2). "The world would still be without railways if it had to wait until accumulation had got a few individual capitals far enough to be adequate for the construction of a railway. Centralization, however, accomplishes this in the twinkling of an eye, by means of joint-stock companies." He quite admires this. But there is no way he is going to arrive at Pareto behaviour, as far as I can see. It serves me right for choosing a jazzy subject line, but the sheer difficulty of escaping from the 'game' does seem to merit the word 'dismal'. Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EST