Re: [OPE] Great article from Jan Toporowski

Concerning this issue of 'under-consumption', the next issue of Research in
Political Economy, i.e., Volume 26, will have an excellent article by Radhika
Desai revisiting the role of consumption in Marx's thought. The issue should be
published in December and I strongly recommend examining Desai's arguments.

Paul Z.

=====
(V23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press softcover, 2008 2nd ed
(V24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA .... (V25) WHY CAPITALISM SURVIVES CRISES
====> Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK
====> Paul Zarembka, Editor www.buffalo.edu/~zarembka

On Tue 10/05/10 3:57 PM , "Cipolla" cipolla@ufpr.br sent:
> I find it dificult to conceal the underconsumptionist basis of Foster's
> interpretation of capitalism in general and the last crisis in particular.
> If you add to that the effort they (Foster and Magdoff) put in
> incorporating Keynes, Hansen, Steindl, Kalecki, Robinson into the picture
leaving to Marx
> the meager reference that "the real barrier of capital is
> capitalism" then one is led to think that their main mentors are keynesians.
Their concepts
> are mainly keynesian: falling marginal propensity to consume of
> capitalists; unemployment equilibrium as a natural state of the economy; the
> transformation of Keynes into a cycle theorist ralized by the work of
> Minsky; the theory of the two prices (capital as output and capital as an
> asset) of Keynes developed by Minsky into a theory of investment without
> absolutely no effort in the direction of developing Marx's theory of
> fictitious capital. I do not really care about names except that things,
> schools of thought, buterflies, all require identification.
> Underconsumption keynesians fit just fine for it retrieves the marxian origin
and add the
> modern substance which is plain keynesian.
> Paulo
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "GERALD LEVY" a_levy@msn.com>To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" sts.csuchico.edu>Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPE] Great article from Jan Toporowski
>
>
> >
> > As far as MR goers, since when are Left
> Keynesians also revolutionary> socialists?? If you think MR is Left Keynesian
> it either means you> don't know the history or politics of the
> publication or your> definition of Left Keynesian is overly
> broad.>
> > And even if it's true that some of the editors
> of MR have had> an underconsumptionist theory of crisis since
> when did crisis> theory define whether one is Left Keynesian or
> socialist? Let's> recall that virtually all of the German-Austrian
> Social Democratic> theorists from Marx's time through the 1930s as
> well as almost> all of the Bolshevik theoreticians had an
> underconsumptionist and/or> disproportionality theory of crisis.
> >
> > What is particularly galling about this
> dismissive characterization> of MR is that it was written by someone who has
> repeatedly said> that one should "refer to schools of
> thought by the name they prefer".> Well, I'm pretty sure that MR would prefer not
> to be called a left> Keynesian underconsumptionmist
> publication!>
> > And - another thing - articles related to crisis
> theory only comprise> a very small % of articles in MR and it is thus
> a gross > mischaracterization
> > to *define* them based on the perspectives of
> several authors on> crisis theory.
> >
> > In solidarity, Jerry
> >
> _______________________________________________> ope mailing list
> > ope@li
> sts.csuchico.edu> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@li
> sts.csuchico.eduhttps://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Oct 6 09:39:55 2010