From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 06:19:47 EDT
At 10:22 +0100 7-10-2005, Andrew Brown wrote: >I'd suggest Smith and classical political economy were certainly >materialist (they had classes based on production, they introduce the >LTV) but not really historical because capitalist classes are taken as >natural and 'history' merely a set of aberrations prior to the natural >(capitalist) order. I would rather say that if one reads ALL Smith's WN, the capitalist order is a likely chance, and definitely there can be better capitalisms than the Manchesterian one, and that the only justification for capitalism is that the invisible hand produces the bettering of workers condition, changing the beggars in labouring poors, and less poor as long as competition regulates entrepreneurs and pushes up the real wage. hence, there was an history before, there is an alternative possible history somewhere else, and yes capitalism is justified as long as it drives up employment and wages. it would be nice if it would be not a piece of fiction r -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Hyman P. Minsky" Università di Bergamo Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it direct +39-035-2052545 secretary +39-035 2052501 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 08 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT