View Original - Middle East Technical University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eproduced in and through social transformations, the changing forms in which these are reproduced, and the reasons why this reproduction is accompanied by ruptures at different points of the social system’(Robles 1994:66), the regulationist research is part of the ongoing inner polemics within Marxism on the crisis of capitalism. It is true that Marx’s critique of political economy anticipated a welter of crisis heuristics(excess commodity and excess capital theories in Mikato Itoh’s(1980) words), each of which has staunchly inveighed against the antithetical elements in others on the basis of the inaugural critique and installed itself with a verbal finality into the research on capitalist mode of production. The fact that there is more than one critique-based crisis heuristic within Marxism and that there are extensive prevarications and disagreements(to the extent that these circumstances snowball into a crisis of the critique itself) is dramatic indeed especially because Marx’s critique had not been exactly a footloose or partial understanding of the antinomies of classical political economy(at least for the discussants within that abstrusely technical farrago of arguments and counterarguments on crisis theory). This said, there have been certain(and perhaps one should say ex post) disclaimers against otherwise trenchant and adverse disagreements over the terms of a veritable Marxist theory of crisis. David Harvey, to that effect, argued that because Marx’s Capital itself was an unfinished manuscript and his thoughts on capitalist crisis were mostly littered fragments in his books, no one should marvel at the adversarial thinking within Marxism on the political economy of crisis. That is to say, for Harvey much sound and fury in Marxist theory of crisis is basically a consequence of the inadvertant shortness of Capital, yet none of that perforce undersells the ‘thoroughness’ of the critique(1982:79). Alas this argument is more an immediate polemic on the crisis- centrism in Marx and Marxism(in that a separate analysis of world market and crisis had been part of a long-before planned design of Capital and ongoing efforts of Marxists toward a Marxist theory of crisis have been nonetheless audacious), and does not really consider the terms in which conceptual breakthroughs and theoretical subtext in Marx’s analyses might have parametrically afforded a fusillade of thought on capitalist crisis. 23
Another argument coterminous to that of Harvey’s in its effects is Bertrall Ollman’s particular understanding of the dialectical method with which Marx had abstracted his explanatory categories and units of analysis. For Ollman, there are seemingly three parts to this method, namely ‘extention’, ‘levels of generality’ and ‘vantage point’. A theory of capitalism’s historical and organic facets as a mode of production is impractical without this threefold method in that ‘abstractions of extention ... allow [Marx] to grasp the various organic and historical movements uncovered by his research as essential movements, [however] it is his abstractions of vantage point that make what is there ... visible’(Ollman 1993:76). Vantage point abstractions does not importune for an a priori hierarchy within the ‘ramified web of connections’(Castree 1995:283). In fact, it is through some vantage-point-based procedure in his method that Marx at first abstracts some analytical hierarchy between, say, contradictions within the capitalist mode of production –contradictions as between exchange value/use value, capital/wage-labour, capitalist/worker. At one level, Ollman’s is a more agile argument than Harvey’s. Latter’s off-hand enthusiasm towards the inclusiveness and ‘thoroughness’ of Marx’s theory despite the abridged extent of his overall design of economic analysis contrasts with the substantial study of Marxian method of abstaction in Ollman. Secondly, explicit in Ollman is the fact that ‘sticking with one vantage point will restrict understanding any relation to its identical or different aspects when, in fact, it contains both’(1993:73-4). Thus for him, excess capital and excess commodity theories of crisis contrast only on the basis of the vantage point they rehearse, and not through their supposedly contradictory methods of abstraction. Furthermore, none of the particular vantage points are redundant as to the Marxian analysis of capitalist crisis. Alas, Ollman mostly expatiates on the methodological foundations of Marx’s seminal analysis, the circumstances of the pluralistic controversy in Marxist crisis theory is peripherial to his visionary understanding of that method. Curiously, Ollman or Harvey does not consider the terms of this controversy irregardless of Marx. This has its weaknesses because often than not the very resort to Marx’s manuscripts too readily narrows the 24
Page 1 and 2: FUTURE OF REGULATION THEORY: OPEN-E
Page 3 and 4: I hereby declare that all informati
Page 5 and 6: ÖZ DÜZENLEME OKULUNUN GELECEĞİ:
Page 7 and 8: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Has all this been a
Page 9 and 10: 4.2 Jessop on Regulation Theory ...
Page 11 and 12: their journal Economies et Sociét
Page 13 and 14: elt around ongoing collective resea
Page 15 and 16: protagonists(albeit with slight cha
Page 17 and 18: foundations in economic analysis, P
Page 19 and 20: CHAPTER 2 RÉGULATION THEORY AND PA
Page 21 and 22: ‘Structural causality’ in Althu
Page 23 and 24: of working class consumption is cot
Page 25 and 26: production’(ibid.:160). This woul
Page 27 and 28: contradiction(or more pedantically
Page 29 and 30: mechanisms no longer had a foothold
Page 31: accumulation as well. Implicitly, s
Page 35 and 36: In part or whole, a multitude of ab
Page 37 and 38: capacity on the basis of the now in
Page 39 and 40: capital goods industries cheapen th
Page 41 and 42: analysts espouse a cyclical fall in
Page 43 and 44: the concept of structural crisis, i
Page 45 and 46: Castree(1999:150) on Postone), and
Page 47 and 48: Value concept in Marx is, of course
Page 49 and 50: over excess capital/excess commodit
Page 51 and 52: and that each commodity has ‘a’
Page 53 and 54: Strictly inflationary or disinflati
Page 55 and 56: value of this collective consumptio
Page 57 and 58: Department II is au fait with the c
Page 59 and 60: the analysis of stylised facts abou
Page 61 and 62: cussednesses and controversies in s
Page 63 and 64: Certain sociologists have been incr
Page 65 and 66: tangential to mainstream economics(
Page 67 and 68: market is conceptually an ‘elusiv
Page 69 and 70: market is an institution of ex post
Page 71 and 72: analysis(2001:74). Marshallian Gene
Page 73 and 74: ‘all these configurations are not
Page 75 and 76: through cyclical crises to the high
Page 77 and 78: 2002:320). Though in Marxist theory
Page 79 and 80: CHAPTER 4 REGULATION THEORY AS AN I
Page 81 and 82: For Werner Bonefeld, strategic-rela
Page 83 and 84:
methodology over another located wi
Page 85 and 86:
that realist ontology has decisive
Page 87 and 88:
Jessop’s uptake on the concept of
Page 89 and 90:
Although, Aglietta studied both the
Page 91 and 92:
ecome suitably sedimented in the pr
Page 93 and 94:
Thereby, ‘the question’ is not
Page 95 and 96:
accumulation’(1991:45-6). Thus th
Page 97 and 98:
mechanisms that are set of, more or
Page 99 and 100:
along ‘a renewal and reconstructi
Page 101 and 102:
compatibility after being establish
Page 103 and 104:
For Jessop, his infléchissement of
Page 105 and 106:
13. Bonefeld, W.(1994) ‘Aglietta
Page 107 and 108:
40. Dunford, M.(1990) ‘Theories o
Page 109 and 110:
67. Jessop, B.(2000) ‘The crisis
Page 111:
95. Perkmann, M.(1996) ‘Regulatio
show all

View Original - Middle East Technical University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?