Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id IAA07683 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:13:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: (from jmote@localhost) by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3/SAS.03) id KAA06350 for socgrad@csf.colorado.edu; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:13:51 -0400 (EDT) From: jmote@sas.upenn.edu (Jonathan E Mote) Message-Id: <199710081413.KAA06350@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Marxian Theory: Continuing Validities To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:13:51 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "CHIVERS JAMES FARREL" at Oct 7, 97 08:40:09 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CHIVERS JAMES FARREL wrote: > > Capitalism does not require unemployment any more than a centrally planned > economy does. It is an artifact of our societies preferences for VCRs > over full employment. Niether is *over consumption* surplus production or > many other idea previously suggested. Since you refer to economics earlier in your message to bolster your argument, we should be clear that mainstream economics does in fact "require" unemployment in its macroeconomic models. While somewhat controversial within the discipline, the notion of NAIRU, or the natural rate of unemployment, is still held by many mainstream economists. The one school of economic thought that explicitly says this is nonsense is post-keynesian, which has full employment *in a market economy* as a policy prescription. > Marx was a very great thinker and social critic and desereves our > attention. So was Adam Smith and until you read The Wealth of Nations and > Theories of Jurisprudence you cannot get a complete picture of what Smith > was suggesting. I would also add Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" for a fuller picture of his thought. Jonathon Mote