Suchergebnisse

אסתר אלכסנדר הייתה אחת הבודדות בישראל שניסתה להתמודד, ברצינות ובאופן מקורי, עם תופעת הסטגפלציה. היא עשתה זאת תוך שימוש מרבי בכלים המסורתיים של המתודה הקיינסיאנית, כשהיא משלבת זאת בגירסת ינקותה המרקסיסטית.

ג'ק לונדון נחשב כיום לסופר של בני נעורים. הוא ידוע בעיקר לקורא העברי מספרי ההרפתקאות שבהם תיאר את הצפון הרחוק, ואת מאבקם של גיבוריו, בני אדם וחיות, בטבע האכזרי ובסביבה הקשוחה. אולי התמימות והפשטות הנערית שממלאים את סיפורי ג'ק לונדון, הם שמקסימים מזה כמאה שנה דורות חדשים של קוראים, אולם יש לאמר שבזמן כתיבתם לא נחשבו הסיפורים נאיביים, וג'ק לונדון היה רחוק מלהיות סופר לילדים מעטים יודעים כי ג'ק לונדון היה בזמנו סופר של רבי-מכר, שנקרא בלהיטות בעיקר על ידי 'מבוגרים', ושעיקר פרסומו בא לו דווקא מכתיבתו הפוליטית הקשוחה. יתר על כן, ג'ק לונדון היה בעשור הראשון של המאה-העשרים הסופר הנקרא ביותר בארה"ב, ואולי הפורה ביותר בכל הזמנים. בחייו הספרותיים הקצרים, שארכו כחמש-עשרה שנים, הוא הצליח להפיק מעצמו כעשרים ספרים, כמאתיים סיפורים וכארבע-מאות מאמרים; כל זאת, לצד חיים סוערים שכללו פעילות פוליטית ערה, פולמוסים ציבוריים, שעשועים, מסעות, אהבות מתוקשרות, גירושים שערוריתיים, הרפתקאות עסקיות, וניסויים מוזרים בחקלאות כבר בעת כתיבתו של הספר, היה ברור לג'ק כי עקב הברזל ייגנז בתירוצים שונים ומשונים. ממכתבים לחבריו עולה כי למעשה הוא חיברו מתוך חשש שזה עלול להיות ספרו האחרון. למעשה עקב הברזל הוא סיפור חייו של ג'ק לונדון. הוא תיאור התנסותו החברתית, התבגרותו הספרותית, והשכלתו הפוליטית. אילו היינו נאלצים להגדירו, היינו אומרים שהספר הוא 'אגדה אוטוביוגרפית שנכתבה עבור מעמד הפועלים'

Israeli politics saw major realignments in 1977 and 1992. The effect of long range economic cycles on the nature and outcome of Israeli electoral politics is examined in these two elections.

Israeli politics saw major realignments in 1977 and 1992. The effect of long range economic cycles on the nature and outcome of Israeli electoral politics is examined in these two elections.

צעדי ה"הכרה ההדדית" בין הפת"ח לבין ממשלת ישראל מאיצים תהליך עמוק יותר, העובר זה כמה שנים על החברה הישראלית: תהליך פירוקו של המישטר הישן על רקע ה"סדר החדש" העולמי ובמיזרח-התיכון. המישטר הישן הוא אותו מיכלול – מיבנה משק, הסדרים מוסדיים ויחסי סמכות – שנוצק על גרעין "המשק המעורב" המנדאטורי שהצמיח את המשק המילחמתי שהתרחב מאז שנותה-70. מיכלול זה החל לחשוף את בקיעיו בשנים האחרונות, וכנראה מתקרב לסוף דרכו. ה"עידן החדש" בכלכלה ובחברה, שמדברים בו כה הרבה, כבר התחיל – וראוי לסכם אותו כעת, בזמן שצלילי תרועת-הניצחון מתמזגים בצליליה של תרועת האשכבה

The purpose of this book is to explain capital as a form of power. It provides a new conceptual framework and new ways of thinking about key global issues including finance-industry relations, globalization and the dynamics of war and peace.

The theory of capital as power (CasP) is radically different from conventional political economy. In the conventional view, mainstream as well as heterodox, capital is seen a 'real' economic entity engaged in the production of goods and services, and capitalism is thought of as a mode of production and consumption. Finance in this approach is either a mere reflection/lubricant of the real economy (the mainstream view), or a parasitic fiction (the heterodox perspective). CasP rejects this framework. Capital, it argues, is not a productive economic entity, but a symbolic representation of organized societal power writ large, and capitalism should be analysed not as a mode of production and consumption, but as a mode of power. In this approach, finance is neither a reflection nor a fiction, but the symbolic language that organizes and creorders - or creates the order of - capitalized power. These are foundational claims. They go to the very heart of political economy, and they have far-reaching implications. So far-reaching, in fact, that if we accept them, we must rewrite, often from scratch, much of the theory, history and possible futures of the capitalist order. Many have complained about CasP being aloof. Our approach, they have argued, insists on being 'right' - to the exclusion of all others. It shows no interest in 'building bridges'. It dismisses neoclassical liberalism altogether, and although sometimes sympathetic to Marx, it aims not to revise Marxism, but to discard it altogether. In this research note - excerpted and revised from our 2020 invited-then-rejected interview with Revue de la regulation - we explain the basis for these complaints and why CasP and conventional political economy cannot be easily bridged. Stated briefly, the problem is not unwillingness but built-in barriers. As it stands, political economy cannot accept capital as power. Its very foundations prevent it from doing so.

The theory of capital as power (CasP) is radically different from conventional political economy. In the conventional view, mainstream as well as heterodox, capital is seen a "real" economic entity engaged in the production of goods and services, and capitalism is thought of as a mode of production and consumption. Finance in this approach is either a mere reflection/lubricant of the real economy (the mainstream view), or a parasitic fiction (the heterodox perspective). CasP rejects this framework. Capital, it argues, is not a productive economic entity, but a symbolic representation of organized societal power writ large, and capitalism should be analysed not as a mode of production and consumption, but as a mode of power. In this approach, finance is neither a reflection nor a fiction, but the symbolic language that organizes and reorders – or creates the order of – capitalized power. These are foundational claims. They go to the very heart of political economy, and they have far-reaching implications. So far-reaching, in fact, that if we accept them, we must rewrite, often from scratch, much of the theory, history and possible futures of the capitalist order. Many have complained about CasP being aloof. Our approach, they have argued, insists on being "right" – to the exclusion of all others. It shows no interest in "building bridges". It dismisses neoclassical liberalism altogether, and although sometimes sympathetic to Marx, it aims not to revise Marxism, but to discard it altogether. In this research note – excerpted and revised from our 2020 invited-then-rejected interview with Revue de la regulation – we explain the basis for these complaints and why CasP and conventional political economy cannot be easily bridged. Stated briefly, the problem is not unwillingness but built-in barriers. As it stands, political economy cannot accept capital as power. Its very foundations prevent it from doing so.

The study of society today is divided into different disciplines – the so-called social sciences – a division that fractures our consciousness into disconnected bits and pieces. Literature does the very opposite: it brings things together, offering glimpses into the enfolded, hologramic nature of society. Here are some of the novels that helped us understand this hologramic enfoldment from different angles. They are all worth reading.

The theory of capital as power (CasP) is radically different from conventional political economy. In the conventional view, mainstream as well as heterodox, capital is seen a 'real' economic entity engaged in the production of goods and services, and capitalism is thought of as a mode of production and consumption. Finance in this approach is either a mere reflection/lubricant of the real economy (the mainstream view), or a parasitic fiction (the heterodox perspective). CasP rejects this framework. Capital, it argues, is not a productive economic entity, but a symbolic representation of organized societal power writ large, and capitalism should be analysed not as a mode of production and consumption, but as a mode of power. In this approach, finance is neither a reflection nor a fiction, but the symbolic language that organizes and creorders – or creates the order of – capitalized power. These are foundational claims. They go to the very heart of political economy, and they have far-reaching implications. So far-reaching, in fact, that if we accept them, we must rewrite, often from scratch, much of the theory, history and possible futures of the capitalist order. Many have complained about CasP being aloof. Our approach, they have argued, insists on being 'right' – to the exclusion of all others. It shows no interest in 'building bridges'. It dismisses neoclassical liberalism altogether, and although sometimes sympathetic to Marx, it aims not to revise Marxism, but to discard it altogether. In this research note – excerpted and revised from our 2020 invited-then-rejected interview with Revue de la regulation – we explain the basis for these complaints and why CasP and conventional political economy cannot be easily bridged. Stated briefly, the problem is not unwillingness but built-in barriers. As it stands, political economy cannot accept capital as power. Its very foundations prevent it from doing so.

The theory of capital as power (CasP) is radically different from conventional political economy. In the conventional view, mainstream as well as heterodox, capital is seen a 'real' economic entity engaged in the production of goods and services, and capitalism is thought of as a mode of production and consumption. Finance in this approach is either a mere reflection/lubricant of the real economy (the mainstream view), or a parasitic fiction (the heterodox perspective). CasP rejects this framework. Capital, it argues, is not a productive economic entity, but a symbolic representation of organized societal power writ large, and capitalism should be analysed not as a mode of production and consumption, but as a mode of power. In this approach, finance is neither a reflection nor a fiction, but the symbolic language that organizes and creorders – or creates the order of – capitalized power. These are foundational claims. They go to the very heart of political economy, and they have far-reaching implications. So far-reaching, in fact, that if we accept them, we must rewrite, often from scratch, much of the theory, history and possible futures of the capitalist order. Many have complained about CasP being aloof. Our approach, they have argued, insists on being 'right' – to the exclusion of all others. It shows no interest in 'building bridges'. It dismisses neoclassical liberalism altogether, and although sometimes sympathetic to Marx, it aims not to revise Marxism, but to discard it altogether. In this research note – excerpted and revised from our 2020 invited-then-rejected interview with Revue de la regulation – we explain the basis for these complaints and why CasP and conventional political economy cannot be easily bridged. Stated briefly, the problem is not unwillingness but built-in barriers. As it stands, political economy cannot accept capital as power. Its very foundations prevent it from doing so.

For much of the 20th and early 21st centuries, U.S. unemployment and incarceration went hand in hand. This is how the rulers disciplined their subjects while bolstering the upward distribution of income.

This note contextualizes the ongoing U.S. policy shift toward greater 'regulation' of large corporations. Cory Doctorow and Blair Fix are optimistic about this shift. We doubt it.