Jim Devine wrote:
I don't know what your perspective on capitalism is, but I see the
Marxian one (combined with some Keynesianism) as superior to the
neoclassical and neo-Ricardian (Sraffian) ones.
John appears to be a follower of Sismondi.
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~vertegaa/
Marx often referred to Sismondi in a favorable light, but, in the end, he and
Engels described Sismondi as the leader of "petty-bourgeois Socialism."
Quote:
This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the
conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of
economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and
division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands;
overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty
bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production,
the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of
extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old
family relations, of the old nationalities.
In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring
the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property
relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and
of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and
were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary
and Utopian.
Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture; patriarchal relations in
agriculture.
Source: Communist Manifesto (Chapter 3)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Sismondi+&num=10&&ft=i&as_sitesearch=www.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fmarx%2F
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
