Re: Re: 'Labor Market Dynamics Within Rival Macroeconomic Frameworks'

From: Ian Wright (ian_paul_wright@HOTMAIL.COM)
Date: Tue Dec 30 2003 - 14:00:33 EST

Hello Jerry,

Apologies for the very delayed response but I have been away.
The trail has probably gone cold by now ...

>*  Can't class struggle -- which, after all, is rooted in the relations
>        of production --  have a role within systemic explanations?
>         All hitherto history, after all, is a history of what?

Yes class struggle can play a role in systemic explanations. But the
distinction I
was trying to make was between explanations that are rooted in the objective
relations of production that generate unintended consequences (e.g.,
income distribution, and, hypothetically, the relative shares in national
compared to explanations rooted in conscious, goal-directed activity that
generate intended consequences (e.g., labour organisation to defend
wages). As a heuristic I'd favour examining the former kind of explanation
first, primarily because the relations of production are invariant to
whereas the causal efficacy of the class struggle is conditional. But this
is only a methodological prejudice -- I don't have a theory of the
of the shares in national income.

>*   _If_ there is a relatively stable wage to profit share, what
>        are the 'systemic' causes 'absent the class struggle'?

Don't know. I'm working on things that may produce some hypotheses
eventually, perhaps along the lines that there are theoretical bounds to the
beyond which the system begins to break down, in terms of rising
unemployment, higher probability of recessions etc. I'd be interested in
any pointers to existing work on endogenous explanations of income shares.


Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EST