Re: >Carrol:

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re: >Carrol:
by Rakesh Bhandari
16 January 2002

>
>^^^^^^^
>
>Rakesh, this post kind of undercuts your claim to understand Marx's
>theory and ideas more deeply than others here.  Marx's theory of the
>business cycle was not a particularly important expression of either
>1), or 3) that you list above.  The business cycle is involved in 2)
>,but is not its only aspect.


Charles, did I say the business cycle was its only or main aspect?
And did I say that I understand Marx more deeply than Fred Moseley?
No, I said I understood Marxian theory more deeply than Carrol Cox.

rb
______

CB: The order of statements was roughly

1) In a thread on the business cycle, Carrol said Marx's main point in analyzing the capitalist business cycle was to show that capitalism is a historically limited mode of production, not universal.

2) You reply that showing the historical limitedness of capitalism was done by others, and that other things were Marx's main creative contributions.

3) I then said to you that, what you mentioned didn't have much to do with the theory of the business cycle.

Since the thread is on the business cycle, the response to your comment is sort of what do those things have to do with Marx's theory of the business cycle, the subject we are talking about.

 I asked you and Fred for the action proposals , the workers' movement demands and program that your profit rate/investment theory of the cause of business cycle crises would generate. What is your alternative to "Keynesian" style reforms.  Do you have an reform proposals, or is all you propose revolution ?