From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Mon Dec 03 2007 - 01:48:05 EST
Jerry, I am not fussed about the labels per se, although it obviously helps a lot if we call things by the right names. Well, all that I know is that I am not a Marxist. Not sure if neo-Marxism is a term of abuse - it could be simply a descriptive term which indicates a position which partly modifies Marx's own thinking. To the extent that Marx bequeathed us an unfinished and incomplete analysis of modern society, and to the extent some of his manuscripts were never or rarely accessible, there is a sense in which we are all "neo" now. Appelations of "orthodoxy" connote a consistency with Marx's own thought I guess, a '"correct" interpretation of what he really thought and stood for. Mandel was called both a neo-Marxist and a "Neanderthal orthodox Marxist" in continental Europe. As far as I know, the term "late capitalism" came into use in Europe towards the end of the 1930s when many economists believed capitalism was doomed (see, for example, Natalia Moszkowska's Zur Dynamik des Spätkapitalismus. Zurich: Verlag Der Aufbruch, 1943) and it was used in the 1960s particularly in Germany and Austria, among others by Marxists writing in the tradition of the Frankfurt School and Austromarxism. Neo-capitalism was a term used by some French and Belgian socialists in the 1960s, for example Andre Gorz and Leo Michielsen. Others, particularly in Britain, used terms such as "Fordist capitalism" (after Gramsci and Aglietta). The accounting conference looks very interesting... as I have argued for many years, all accounting in fact presumes a value theory of some kind which goes beyond prices and cannot be completely derived from prices. Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 31 2007 - 00:00:04 EST