[OPE-L:4025] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: m in Marx's theory

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 03:29:31 EDT

Re 4008

>I argue that Marx's theory does indeed derive "unambiguous
>predictions" about important phenomena in capitalist economies, which can
>be empirically tested.  These "unambiguous predictions" are that
>capitalist economies will be characterized by: (1) conflicts over the
>length of the working day; (2) conflicts over the intensity of labor; and
>inherent technological change....
>It is obvious that these "unambiguous predictions" of Marx's theory are
>strongly supported by the history of all capitalist economies over the
>last several centuries.

what about (3)the crisis cycle and the breakdown of the capitalist system?
Didn't you write somewhere that if a Great Depression-style crisis 
did not materialize in the US before 2000 you would consider Marx's 
theory of value, accumulation and crisis falsified? I am sure that I 
don't have it right here, but what did happen to 3?

Are we just back to the more prominent features of capital vol 1 
which speak directly to the daily class struggle--the theory of 
surplus value, the length or intensity of the workday? Are you 
backing off the catastrophism because you do believe that the 
'information revolution' can neutralize or reverse what you take to 
be the greatest present burden on profitability--the rise in the UP/P 
labor ratio?

All the best, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST