Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 01:40:15 +0700 From: djones-AT-uclink.berkeley.edu (donna jones) Subject: re:objectivism and catastrophism I forgot to add in my last post that the argument that revolutionary politics follows exactly from the theory of breakdown (instead of passivity and fatalism) was articulated long ago by Russel Jacoby and Anwar Shaikh. Aside from Pannekoek's critique of breakdown theories, there is an important one by Korsch in his writings ed. by Kellner. From the Korschian perspective, perhaps one could argue that what Marx wanted to prove is that the falling rate of profit is consistent with and in fact explainable by a higher rate of exploitation. This reverses Ricardo's explanation of the "terrifying" drop in profits and points to the heightening of social contradictions with the accumulation of capital. This may well be Grossmann's and Mattick, Sr.'s interpretation --especially in his last 1983 book Marxism--the last refuge of the bourgeoisie? Such a Korschian-Mattick reading would then make impossible any sort of contemplative attitude before the Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall. It would also deny the Law of any predictive-naturalist reading, which is what Daniel Little has persuasively argued against . And I believe that this is perhaps what Alex may have been pointing to. Again something to think about. By the way, in Kevin Brien, there is also an excellent discussion of above themes--including a very good critique of the Sweezy thesis of a tendency for the surplus to rise as the "updated" law of monopoly capitalism. d jones ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005