<<
hey rakesh, now i buy this argument but how exactly does the research
clarify the tasks of class struggle? >>
Well for one, the alledged "massive" productivity slowdown of 1973 is really a load of bunk. Yes, productivity slowed somewhat, but not because of worker stupidity (or too many women, blacks, etc). The corporate propaganda machines knew very well that manufacturing labor productivity was much stronger than the BLS measures of multifactor productivity suggest. Even with all the inflationary distortions of the 1970s, output and productivity was quite robust relative to the 1980s and early 1990s. The problem with analyses by Dave Gordon, Bowles, Weisskopf et. al. - whom I admire and respect - is that they took the "official story" at face value
So, yes, the Marxian categories serve a very useful purpose in rebutting the "official story." Now, can you make the case to the rest of the world without having to read the "Black (Hypertensive/Diabetic/Asthmatic) Moor" - obviously. But, isn't the broader project to get people to think critically about the social role of what they "DO FOR A LIVING?" I think the classical Marxian approach is a good place to start.
Word to Doug: I always find it useful when I'm really bored with this argument to re-read the beginning in Shaikh & Tonak's book re: NC theory about labor and why any "market valued" labor is considered productive. Moroever, why is it that guard employment and "Kosovo mobilization(s)" actually increase GDP???
A 1,000 kudos to Doug for his ruthless refusal to accept the Marxian approach (which I agree with). Marxists economists often have this "we can't afford to be wrong" ideal. Noble as that is, the problems at hand are alot less "elegant" and will require most participants to roll up their sleeves and and do alot of mundane things!
Jason
Jason