IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Duncan says: > >I thought the Mensheviks argued for an interpretation of Marx which >emphasized capitalism's historical role as preparing the ground for >socialism by developing the forces of production, which was what I had in >mind on a world scale. Didn't the Mensheviks argue for critical support of >the nascent Russian bourgeoisie in the 1917 crisis? Does the 'menshevik scenario' have something to do with a view you expressed in your (1982) piece on the 'transformation problem'? I seem to remember you suggested (in my view, correctly) that the existence of surplus product doesn't imply capitalist social relations, the form in which the surplus is appropriated; but from this you drew the conclusion that workers should forget about trying to eliminate the former, and concentrate on getting rid of the latter. So, 1) how does the market socialism you now envisage differ from other visions - say John Roemer's? and 2) which national bourgeosie will you be supporting through the various crises of the new millenium; or does the 'world scale' create a small problem? comradely, Nicky
- [OPE-L:2091] Re: determination of constant capital, (continued)
- [OPE-L:2091] Re: determination of constant capital, Andrew_Kliman Tue 11 Jan 2000, 20:59 GMT
- [OPE-L:2176] Re: Re: determination of constant capital, Fred B. Moseley Mon 17 Jan 2000, 00:57 GMT
- [OPE-L:2002] *What will happen in the 21st Century?*, JERRY LEVY Sat 01 Jan 2000, 23:40 GMT
- [OPE-L:2006] Re: *What will happen in the 21st Century?*, Duncan K. Foley Sat 02 Jan 2010, 15:31 GMT
- [OPE-L:2020] Re: Re: *What will happen in the 21st Century?*, nicola taylor Tue 04 Jan 2000, 03:22 GMT
- [OPE-L:2055] Re: Re: Re: *What will happen in the 21st Century?*, Duncan K. Foley Sat 08 Jan 2000, 04:51 GMT
- [OPE-L:2001] Re: Re: Re: Re: Value Form (1972), JERRY LEVY Sat 01 Jan 2000, 22:55 GMT
- [OPE-L:2003] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Value Form (1972), Steve Keen Sun 02 Jan 2000, 00:36 GMT
- [OPE-L:2000] Re: A possible paradox in the theory of value, Steve Keen Sat 01 Jan 2000, 21:40 GMT