>It provides us with the approriate framework to build accounting systems
>so that we can measure Marxian categories like the rate of surplus value,
>the rate of exploitation, productivity, rate of profit, etc (the whole
>point of Shaikh and Tonak's book "Measuring the Wealth of Nations"). You
>can not measure Marxian categories with Keynesian based accounting systems.
>In other words, the proper and painful understanding of the notion of
>productive/non-productive labor is not just an intellectual exercise but a
>necessary step in the building of marxian theory, the connection between
>theory and observable reality, the tool necessary to have a proper
>understanding of economic categories defined by historically determined
>social relations.
Ok, I sorta figured that, which brings me to my next question - what's the point of these Marxian accounting systems. I'll ask the question that gets Jerry Levy so bent out of shape - what do these categories tell you that the intelligent use of bourgeois statistics can't? I've read Shaikh & Tonak's book and I can't figure out the point of the exercise. My suspicion is that the point used to be to prove the inevitability of crisis and collapse, but all but the hardiest fundamentalists are shy about doing that now, so that's receded into the background. And without that point, it all seems like a scholastic exercise to me. But I'm willing, even eager, to be proven wrong, so please convince me to the contrary.
Doug