commissioner.org
| Source | Carrol Cox |
| Date | 01/11/28/02:47 |
| Doug Henwood wrote:
> Why is it that several hundred progressive > economists and quasi-economists have so little to say > about The Economy? It's a serious problem, no? What would it mean to say something about "The Economy"? Something "more," that is, than one gets in LBO and in Jim Devine's occasional long summarizing posts? No two economists, reactionary or progressive, seem to agree about what is going to happen the next few months -- and it is unclear to me what political difference it would make if we did know. Granted, some radicals wish to predict terrible things are going to happen, but it seems to me that desire comes from not really believing Marx's fundamental analysis of capitalism: that is, somehow they seem to think that a thriving economy for a few hundred million (or even a billion) future-haunted individuals constitutes a defense of capitalism or a proof that history has ended. We need a fundamental understanding of capitalism as an historical epoch, a dynamic, and we need a limited and superficial understanding of what's happening now -- but beyond that the important questoins seem to be political rather than economic. Probably we grasp that fundamental understanding more fully if we participate in or follow debates over marginally different understandings -- i.e., I'm not sure if it is important to know whether or not the distinction between productive labor and unproductive labor gives us a better description of the actual economy or not -- but I'm pretty sure that the _debate_ about its importance or unimportance is important. . . . . . . . Carrol |
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho