Re Rakesh's : > there is not a clear statement on Marx's > theory of money and general crisis from Roemer and you. Which at one > level is absurd. Why is it absurd? The focus that Roemer and Gil have on Marx seems to me to be secondary -- the main focus is on comprehending capitalism in a systematic manner. One might claim instead that it is *more* absurd for a theory not to have a clear statement on contemporary developments re crisis than on a Marx history of thought question. > the Copernican world of John Roemer. As we saw last year, it is other Marxists -- some who are self-proclaimed advocates of 'Marx's Marxism' -- who claim the title of being Copernicans. > > To tell you the truth, I think many people here think the problems > are so grave and obvious in analytical marxism--and analytical > marxists are so unwilling to come to grips with the obvious--that > it's a waste of time to criticize their interpretations. Really -- who are these 'many' people? > For example > in Roemer, ed. volume I think the only systematic treatment of crisis > is Przeworski's wage squeeze kind of theory but such theory has much > difficulty accounting for movements in the profit rate, and Fred has > argued that his theory does not suffer from the same problems. That depends on the version of 'wage squeeze theory' that you are talking about. E.g. the labor power shortage theory of crisis (advocated by Uno and contemporary writers such as Makoto) claims that it is *better* able to account for *cyclical* changes in the profit rate than rising organic composition of capital FRP theory. Indeed, Makoto has claimed that the ability of labor power shortage theory to explain *periodicity* in the trade cycle is a major advantage of that perspective. In solidarity, Jerry PS to all: please indicate the OPE-L ID # of the post you are responding to.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST