I also think that Kolakowski was tagged anti-Marxist because in the 1980s such critiques as his (i.e. "within" and erudite) were relatively rare. But there is no doubt that he had huge admiration for Marx.
"He [Marx] has profoundly affected our understanding of history, and it is hard to deny that without him our researches would be less compete and accurate than they are.
It makes [for example] an essential difference…whether the history of Christianity is presented as an intellectual struggle about dogmatic interpretation of doctrine, or whether these are regarded as manifestations of the
The article on the Amazon worker is 1 of the best documentary pieces I have read. Why?
1 It describes the often dystopian work environment, total alienation of workers, desire to escape from it all which hampers any type of organization. This is the world of unhappy individuals.
2 It also shows generalized disinterest of the middle-level management.
3 But it brilliantly showcases capitalism's (in this case Amazon's) ability to organize production and to extract as much surplus value from workers as possible.
4 I compared the work described in the article with what I have seen as a young person on the shop-floor in socialist Yugoslavia where people worked at most 3-4h per day, and I was awed by Amazon's technology.
Ten book reviews on China (with * rankings)
How China became a market economy
Julian Gewirtz's "Unlikely partners" *** branko2f7.substack.com/p/how-china-be…
Sometimes people say that methodology is not important. You just do what you have to do (esp. in econ). But that clearly is false. By believing that you are ignoring "methodology" you are actually applying one.
On the other hand, methodology-only books are sterile and boring.
But when they are good, they are illuminating.
Here are three examples on global topics w/ my reviews:
Very interesting point by @MattBruenig. mattbruenig.com/2021/07/24/nor…
It says the following. Norway's emissions per unit of fuel extracted are less than that of other oil producing countries. If we take total oil production as x, it is less CO2 intensive...
...to produce it in Norway than elsewhere => Norway's production should *expand*.
Matt's point totally misses the income part. Oil output results in higher income. For a given amount of emissions, it is better for the world that they should be emitted in Nigeria than in Norway.
Thus, ideally you should start with the poorest country in the world, let it produce as much oil as possible and then move to the next, until you have exhausted the demand for oil.
Under that pro-poor scenario Norway would produce zero oil.
*Jedna* recenica mog intervjua u "Danasu" da Srbija (do korone) "menja neke elemente demokratije za brzi ekonomski rast" izazvala je veliku polemiku. (Uzgred, Srbija se nigde ne pominje ni u "C,A" niti u "Globalnoj nejednakosti".)
Imao sam u vidu da su s jedne strane, nezavisne institucije u Srbiji znacajno oslabljene u poslednjih desetak godina, ali da je, u isto vreme, ekonomski rast bio zadovoljavajuci. On jos nije na nivou na kome bi idealno trebalo da bude, ali jeste zadovoljajuci.
I ne samo ekonomski rast vec i drugi ekonomski pokazatelji: inflacija, porast izvoz/GDP, smanjenje budzetskog deficita, smanjenje nezaposlenosti itd.
Ali najveca polemika je nastala oko stope raste sto je cudno, jer je to prilicno lako izracunati i uporediti.