4 ms·
It seems like an ok reading of the history on first glance but it is the Marxist perspective. I suppose necessary to understand the heterodox viewpoint. > So
by ebog 7y ago
It seems like an ok reading of the history on first glance but it is the Marxist perspective. I suppose necessary to understand the heterodox viewpoint.
> So central to
capitalist reality is this motor of growth that it lies behind both imperialist conquest and the
launching of those periodic prolonged booms of which the Belle Époque and the post-war
Golden Age are the most recent examples.
This is a pretty ridiculous conclusion that is demonstrably false.
- claudiawerner 7y agoI don't know much about the examples myself. I'm interested in why the author is wrong.
- QuesnayJr 7y agoMarxist value theory basically died out in the 70s, which Freeman basically concedes in the "The Marxists Divide" section. His TSSI is an attempt to resusitate the theory, but it has found few adherents.
- claudiawerner 7y agoIt is worth noting that the TSSI isn't the only one around any more, though - nor is the strictly quantitative interpretation of value theory. The TSSI was constructed as an interpretation to solve the transformation problem, but there's Dumenil's New Interpretation now and Fred Moseley's Macro-Monetary Interpretation. It is not surprising that Freeman would make such a concession as an economist rather than as a philosopher, where Marxian value-form theory flourished in Germany and Japan during the 70s and 80s and still to this day.