Titlebook: Beyond Capital; Marx‘s Political Eco Michael A. Lebowitz Book 2003Latest edition The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2003 capit

引水渠

Why Marx? A Story of Capital, least of which is capitalism. So, rather than resurrect a long-dead economist who studied nineteenth-century capitalism in Western Europe, why not just look at what modern economists have to say, or, if we don’t like that, why not do what Marx himself did — analyse the . economic system?

Obituary

The Political Economy of Wage-Labour,m for him was clearly characterized by two sides and their relations. The relations of capitalism contained within them the relations of capitalism as capital, the same relations as wage-labour and the mutual relations of these two to one another.

cushion

Beyond Capital?,cribed by G.A. Cohen in his book, ., the thesis of ‘the primacy of productive forces’ proposes that the existence of a set of productive relations is explained by the level of development of the productive forces and that a new set of relations of production emerges when the old set ‘fetters’ the productive forces (Cohen, 1978).

Offensive

The North American Free-Trade AgreementTo understand ., it is necessary to grasp what it is .. We know that . was never completed. Nevertheless, the problems described in the preceding chapter cannot be blamed upon the unfinished state of .. After all, the basic contents of the latter two volumes were reasonably clear in Marx’s mind before he completed his final draft of Volume I of .:

Intellectual

International Economic Integration‘Capitalist production’, Marx (1977: 929) declared, ‘begets with the inexorability of a natural process, its own negation’. Unfortunately (in view of the amount of suffering that capitalism produces), this is not true.

Jargon

The Missing Book on Wage-Labour,To understand ., it is necessary to grasp what it is .. We know that . was never completed. Nevertheless, the problems described in the preceding chapter cannot be blamed upon the unfinished state of .. After all, the basic contents of the latter two volumes were reasonably clear in Marx’s mind before he completed his final draft of Volume I of .:

好開(kāi)玩笑

From Capital to the Collective Worker,‘Capitalist production’, Marx (1977: 929) declared, ‘begets with the inexorability of a natural process, its own negation’. Unfortunately (in view of the amount of suffering that capitalism produces), this is not true.

Euphonious

http://image.papertrans.cn/b/image/185138.jpg

洞察力

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5565-7 least of which is capitalism. So, rather than resurrect a long-dead economist who studied nineteenth-century capitalism in Western Europe, why not just look at what modern economists have to say, or, if we don’t like that, why not do what Marx himself did — analyse the . economic system?

褪色

The International Monetary Fundthe nature of capital? Should we scuttle the idea that capital rests upon the exploitation of workers, that it has an insatiable appetite for surplus labour, that it accordingly searches constantly for ways to extend and intensify the workday, to drive down real wages, to increase productivity? What