And Kadar's Reforms were small and in some ways essential but stopped at a certain point
And Lenin Implementing NEP to satisfy the Krondstatists demands was seen as a step back but it stopped at a certain point
And Mao allowed a Market but thought those who openly wished to see Complete economic Liberalization
Is he Deng tier? we dont know yet we must simply wait and see…..
Whats your Idea of Mainstream?
Citation needed
Another textbook example of how capitalism cannot exist without the state.
Why do we get all of these bad-faith non-arguments lately? I mean seriously, this post is full of fallacies.
As numerum.
Some more Thoughts
A. The Article itself states that most of these Business's are Self-Employment / Family Managed which is both not that extreme and more in Line with Kadarism then Dengism and also not Alien to Cuba as Business of this variety has always been able to exist simply on a Clandestine Level
B. The Article also Points out that the New Constitution Re-Affirms that Central Planning will Remain the Dominant / General Pillar of the Cuban economy which is positive to see
C. Looking away from economics for a Minute the New constitution also seeks to Concrete the exceptional separation of powers present in the Cuban Government into the constitution and also will hopefully lead to more rights for LGBT Cubans both of which are positive
D. this must all be voted for by the Cuban Proletariate / Peasants in a nationwide open referendum so this cant really be compared to some Yeltsinite / Dengoid Infiltrating a goverment and Dismantaling Socialism
Kek. The core theories have been rebuted. LTV and "surplus labor" are not a thing my man.
Communist Hungary ended up collapsing my man. The economy was stagnating for decades. Neither did Mao's reforms have much effect. It took Deng's reforms to do the trick.
Neoclassic economics which most economists subscribe to by far.
Cockshott is a fringe theorist. He doesn't have any papers published in any reputable econmic journals?
Want actual takedowns of his work?
Here's an exchange between him and two other economists. pdfs.semanticscholar.org
In addition see the linked papers. Again, his findings are not considered valid by the vast majority of economists because they are so shoddy. If you want to actually read proof for marginalism, read Debreu's theory of value.
LTV is pretty much flat-earth tier and not considered valid by the vast majority of modern economists.
Alright then, I'm reading this exchange between cockshott and Bichler and Nitzan.
That doesn't function as a refutation of LTOV itself.
This is so stupid. All of these terminology. Austrian school. Lesser fare. Neoliberal. Neoclassic. So stupid.
Don't like CIA interference? JUST MAKE YOUR OWN COMMIE VERSION!
You don't know who Andrew Kliman is, do you? Neoclassical economics is an inculcated cesspool of failure, and the principal (i.e. non-ideological) work of Cockshott was Classical Econophysics which was published in Routledge' series on advancements in computational economics. Piss off
The problem with you, and most neoclassical economists, is not that they "refute" the LTV, but that they observe very different things. The shift from LTV to marginalism is not that the former suddenly got "debunked", but rather the field of observation shifted from political economy to neoclassical economy.