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.
KeywordsNeoclassical Economic Normal Science Capitalist Country Socialist Society Interwar Period
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Paul Baran, The Political Economy of Growth (New York: Monthly Review, 1957);Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- 5.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.Google Scholar