The transition out of feudalism to capitalism in Europe, mostly from the 17th to the 19th centuries, took multiple forms.  It was uneven as well, happening in different ways at different rates in different places.  Marx studied that transition's various dimensions because they offered valuable lessons for the different transition he was interested in: out of capitalism to socialism and communism.  One such lesson needs restatement now.

Since 1917 analysts have debated what kind of economic system existed in the USSR and the PRC. They mostly juxtaposed `socialism' there to `capitalism' in Western Europe and the USA. The two sides were defined chiefly in terms of private versus state property and markets versus planning. We challenge this debate by means of Marx's focus on the organization of surplus labor. That is, we distinguish capitalism, socialism, and communism according to how these systems differently organize the surplus.

A documentary film entitled “Capitalism Hits the Fan” was shown at this year’s IPA annual meeting. It begins by explaining why today’s global economic meltdown is no mere financial crisis. It is rather a systemic crisis rooted in the conflicted relation between employers and employees across all capitalist enterprises in the US. It flows from Main Street as much as from Wall Street. It engulfs households, enterprises, and the government. It is a crisis of capitalism and not merely of finance.   To show this, let’s take a brief look at US history.

Class analyses are both very old and quite new. This essay argues that Marx contributed a new class definition and analysis focused on the production, appropriation, and distribution of surplus labor. Yet, that innovative, new class analysis was lost by being dissolved into either pre-Marxian conceptualizations of class in terms of property and power or later social theories in which class was determined by people’s consciousness and self-identifications. In this context, the essay pays special attention to the recent work of E.O. Wright.

The crisis in capitalism today is not, or not yet, a crisis of capitalism. Whether it evolves into a crisis of capitalism - when the system itself is in question for significant numbers of people - depends on three factors. The first is the extent of the economic meltdown now underway, and the mass suffering, resentment, and opposition it provokes. The second factor comprises the policies undertaken to contain and reverse the crisis, their effects, and their public perception.

Professor Wolff's response to Stanley Aronowitz's article The Current Political Situation, published in the Situations journal.

Althusser’s pioneering concept of ‘‘ideological state apparatuses’’ is extended to the unique role of consumerism as a particular ideology enabling and supporting U.S. capitalism. It is argued that rising levels of worker consumption have functioned effectively to compensate workers for (and thereby allow) rising rates of exploitation and their negative social effects. For such compensation to succeed requires that workers embrace an ideology stressing the importance of consumption--namely, consumerism. It is argued that the weakness of the U.S.

The  clash  of  different Marxian  theories  infusing  David  Harvey’s  work  reflects  a  key transitional moment  in  the  development  of  the Marxian  tradition.  He draws  deeply  from  the rich accumulated  literature of  that  tradition’s 150 years.   At  the  same  time,  the new directions within Marxism  that erupted  in  the 1960s and 1970s profoundly  influenced Harvey.   Transition within

Shaun Hargreaves Heap recently reminded us (PAER no. 26, 2 August 2004) that The Affluent Society raises an issue as important today as when Galbraith wrote nearly fifty years ago. Why do consumers want ever more goods and services when the evidence suggests that more consumption delivers no greater happiness? Heap praises, discusses, and adds to Galbraith’s explanations for this riddle of consumption or what might better be called the fetishism of consumption.

Now more than ever, the watchword in economics is “policy.” “Decision-makers” demand – and sometimes pay well for – “the appropriate policy” to solve those economic problems that strike them as important. Economists interested in “practical relevance” respond by “applying” their theories to supply such a policy. What goes unquestioned is the plausibility of “policy” itself. Yet, the very notion of policy is questionable.