socialismorbarbarism wrote:
>
> I'm rummaging through my brain, trying to remember the name of this
> 19th century fellow who covered some of the same thing... Marques...
> Marks... :)
>
> No, really. Does this work assume Marx, or assume that Marx will be
> ignored by the world so why bother, or assume that Marx is wrong so
> why bother, or consider Marx irrelevant, or something else...?
>
> On 3/6/09, michael perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> > I just completed a nearly final version of The Invisible Handcuffs of
> > Capitalism: How Market Tyranny Stifles the Economy by Stunting Workers. I
> > have put out earlier versions, but this one is very different. The second
> > half is totally new.
Well, Marx analyzed capitalism at a very high level of abstraction: His aim, after all, was to identify those features of ccapitalism which would characterize _any_ particular form it might assume. Hence, as Robert Albritton among others has pointed out, the understanding of any particular capitalist society involves what Albritton called "Middle Theory." Until you have actually read Michael's text you are in no position to judge whether it attempts to replace Marx or is an instance of such middle theory. (And of course there are many other possibilites.)
Carrol