On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Louis Proyect wrote:
> It's also something that Dave
> Laibman, of "Science and Society", has
> argued. I heard him last year at the Brecht Forum speaking on his new book
> "CAPITALIST MACRODYNAMICS A SYSTEMATIC INTRODUCTION".
I've just been reading the new Science and Society, actually, the special issue on dialectics. (Whoever was asking on here what the word meant might want to pick up a copy, though I have a feeling it's a longer answer than they were looking for.) Some great stuff in there, especially the essay by Jameson. If I could write sentences like his I'd die happy.
> He said that the
> problem for capitalism is that the working class has become too powerful in
> recent years, not the bourgeoisie. I had the feeling that he, like most
> value theorists, was arguing more from an abstract model than real life.
No doubt. Glyn and his collaborators aren't value theorists, though. In fact they've had a long-running controversy with the biggest value-theorist of them all, Anwar Shaikh, over who pays for the welfare state. they say capital, he says the working class. It's interesting that Brenner doesn't draw on Shaikh's stuff more, it would seem to offer some support for the position that there was no upsurge of working-class power in the late '60s.
Josh