Abstract
If Marxism is a Kuhnian science, it is an early science, in which rival schools flourish and first principles continue to be argued at least as frequently as problems of detailed development. This, I think, is the clear result of a straightforward application of Kuhn’s tests for a normal science to Marxist economics. But perhaps there are inherent reasons why sciences of society should differ from the natural sciences that form the basis of Kuhn’s appraisal. Two such reasons seem particularly relevant.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Paul Baran, The Political Economy of Growth (New York: Monthly Review, 1957);
Ernest Mandel, op. cit. (the original French version appeared in 1962); Branko Horvat, Toward a Theory of Planned Economy (Belgrade: PIER, 1964) (the original Serbo-Croatian version appeared in 1961); and Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon, 1964).
L. V. Kantorovich, Economic Calculation of the Best Use of Resources (Russian) (Moscow, 1960). The author’s vision of a price-based Soviet socialist economy occurs at pp. 166–169, 232–239.
Copyright information
© 1972 Basic Books, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ward, B. (1972). Twentieth-Century Marxism. In: What’s Wrong with Economics?. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-01806-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-01806-2_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-01808-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-01806-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)