>>Why? If you define Marxism as a theory of an inevitable terminal crisis of
>>capitalism - which I think is always the point of the whole
>>value-theorizing tradition, though they've gotten shy about admitting it in
>>the late 1990s - yes, it is. But if you define Marxism as a theory of
>>capitalism as a social system based on exploitation, which is unstable,
>>polarizing, and destructive by its very nature, then Marxism has lot of
>>life left in it.
>
>
>But this is not how Marx himself would have defined it. So why don't you
>choose another name? "Utopian socialism", perhaps ;-)
Or dystopian capitalism.
Actually, I'm toying with the idea that Marx used "science" as his substitute for Utopia. Unlike all those dreamy airheads, he had a system that just *proved* capitalism's inevitable demise. Of course Paul Sweezy once said that it might take 400 years to happen, which would try my patience.
Doug