[OPE-L:7029] Re: Re: Marxist economics?

From: Asfilho@aol.com
Date: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 02:59:03 EDT

I agree with 
Simon. I think he has put it very well indeed.


> It seems to me that what we call it doesn't much matter. But there are a 
> whole host of unresolved issues about how contemporary capitalism works. 
> For example:
> 1. What determines the value of labour power and wages?
> 2. What determines the value of money?
> 3. What is the predominant pattern today of technical progress? Has it 
> changed? If so, why?
> 4. Why has the rate of profit been rising in major capitalist economies 
> since 1982 or so?
> 5. (If you believe in the distinction) what are the consequences of the 
> continuous steady rise in unproductive labour over the last third of the 
> 20C?
> 6. Why is inflation so low? (Or, why was it so high in the 70s and 80s?)
> 7. What are the economic mechanisms of imperialism?
> 8. If finance is an unproductive sector, why is it so predominant?
> 9. How do financial derivatives and associated products connect with value 
> theory?
> 10. What determines exchange rate movements?
> (And more generally:
> 11. Why is Marxism so male? (Look for example at OPE-L.)
> 12. What do we mean by socialism, and how do we think it might work?
> And I could go on.)
> These are serious analytical issues and require serious work. Marxism 
> surely has to be more than just a political rhetoric. Or, there's not a lot 
> of point in trying to change the world if we don't understand it. I guess 
> this is to say that you can call it what you will - economics, Marxist 
> economics, political economy, critique of political economy or whatever 
> -  the questions remain and still require our answers. Don't they?
> Simon

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT