>is not only a fruitful insight but a clarification of the tasks of the
>class struggle. I think the resolute anti Keynesianism of Mattick, Coontz,
>Cogoy, Yaffe, Rachleff, Moseley, Shaikh/Tonak represents an important
>current within Marxism.
hey rakesh, now i buy this argument but how exactly does the research clarify the tasks of class struggle? seriously. is this something that's profoundly confusing to marxists? sure, we have debates about what to do, as carrol's post pointed out rather nicely. but those seem to be differences in flavor of marxism more than anything else. i'm really quite interested in this argument because i'm of the position that theory and methodology and methods are inextricably intertwined and, not only that, but they shape the contours of political practice in important ways. thus, my argument against both doug and roger/rakesh would be: hypothetical deductive models of predictive social science produce knowledges that, in the end, maintain the status quo because they contribute to the development of a policy science--facts to be used for the administration of things. this is a complex argument and i can't do it justice until next week, but i'll get back to you.
kelley