Thanks for this. I'm testy about URLs without some introduction because I have to ration rather strictly the time I spend looking at the screen: my eyes begin to blur and then I get a lesson in just what kind of battle my students found themselves in struggling with Charterhouse of Parma & Bleak House: I read to slowly for comprehension. Just parsing the letters takes up too much cognitive space, none left for thinking.
The article sounds interesting from the sample you offer. My suspicion of claims of relevancy in respect to Marx is the tendency to reuce a profound crutuqye if political economy, illuminateve of all versions of capitalism to a critical economics applied directly to a particular economy. I have sometimes mocked this as the expectation that quantum mechanics should provide us with the proper oven temperature and time for roast lamb. I really do not believe, for example, that Marx can be of much or any help in predicting how deep and lasting the current recession is going to be. He can tell us, has told us, that capitalism in _any_ of its myriad possible manifestations will generate an endless stream of destructive crises. He has told us that there is no possibility of the human organization of labor within capitalism or within any nationalized version of it or under any version of it that hasn't appeared yet. His Critique is VERY ABSTRACT. The chapterw, for example, on machinery and on the Working Day are not evidence of anything but developments of the dynamic of the formal and real subsumption of labor by capitalism and of the inescapably growing gap between value (from human labor) and wealth (more and more not from human labor but from science and technology).
It is the attempt to force a direct linkage between fundamental theory and either political practice or "writing of history." (Albritton sees a least three levels: Critique of Capitalism, a dialectical study; middle theory, or the study of the dynamic of a given 'period' or regime-- he instances the liberal capitalism of 19th-c England from which Marx drew his illustrations [not "evidence]; and history, the study of empirical actuality at any time and place.) It was wariness lest you r source thought Marx wad directly 'relevant' to that third level which triggered my request for more information.
More later perhaps.
Carrol