A short intervention in Sveriges Television 21-6-2018 on the Greek economy
A short intervention in Sveriges Television 21-6-2018 on the Greek economy
Below is my short intervention in YLE (Finnish Broadcasting Company) on the Greek economy, 21-6-2018
As it is usual in such interventions only a small part is included and much of its substance is lost.
Viktig dag för Grekland: Långivarna ska godkänna Greklands exit från nödlåneprogrammet. ”En milstolpe” säger optimistiska greker till Svenska Yle i Aten
Bild: Patrick Holmström
Efter åtta år av djup ekonomisk kris, tre nödpaket, hårda reformer och inbesparingar är det tänkt att Grekland i augusti ska stå på egna ben igen. Men klarar sig det hårt prövade landet utan stöd från de internationella långivarna? Ekonomer höjer ett varningens finger medan vanliga greker för första gången på länge är optimistiska.
Tänk om Greklands ekonomi skulle växa lika fort som de här plantorna, skämtar Sotiris Vamvakaris när han visar mig runt i trädgården där han för hemmabruk odlar allt från grönsaker till olika kryddor.
Hans fru Irini dukar fram bakelser hon själv lagat.
– De är nästan lika gudomliga som min fru, säger Sotiris Vamvakaris och skrattar.
Idag har han lätt för att skratta men så var det inte när den grekiska ekonomiska krisen började för snart ett decennium sedan.
«Allt förändrades – det var en katastrof»
Vi sätter oss ner runt bordet och de berättar om tiden då deras trygga medelklassliv slogs i spillror. En historia som de delar med väldigt många andra grekiska familjer.
– Affären jag jobbade i gick i konkurs. Också min man Sotiris blev arbetslös, det var en total katastrof. Våra två söner gick då ännu i skola, de behövde oss, men vi hade det väldigt svårt. Jag blev deprimerad, säger Irini.
Bild: Yle/Daniel Olin
Efter den första chocken bestämde de sig för att börja kämpa.
– Det var väldigt svårt, men vi lyckades ta oss ur det värsta genom att hålla ihop. Det krävdes mycket styrka och kärlek, säger Sotiris.
Irini är visserligen fortfarande arbetslös men Sotiris har hittat nytt jobb och de klarar sig på en lön.
Men den ekonomiska krisen betydde även stora förändringar för familjen. Den största är att parets båda söner lämnade Grekland, som så många andra unga greker.
Sönerna bor i London, föräldrarna har inte råd att besöka dem.
– Den ena jobbar på ett företag, den andra är servitör på en grekisk restaurang i centrum av London. De har det bra och har en bra lön. Men visst saknar jag dem, säger Sotiris och torkar bort en tår.
Men de menar ändå att de nu för första gången på flera år ser positiva signaler och känner en viss optimism.
– Jag ser att det går mot det bättre. Folk talar inte längre om att glaset är halvtomt utan istället halvfullt, säger Irini.
– Jag hoppas att den ekonomiska återhämtningen ska få mina barn och också andra unga som lämnat Grekland att återvända, säger Sotiris.
Greklands ekonomi växer – men krisen är inte över
Grekerna har genomlevt tuffa år. Sedan krisen började har landets bruttonationalprodukt minskat med en fjärdedel. Landets skuldbörda uppgår idag till 180 procent av BNP.
Men efter många tuffa år med hårda reformer och besparingar går det nu bättre för Grekland.
Arbetslösheten är på väg ner, den har sjunkit från 27 procent till 20 procent.
Skatteindrivningen har förbättrats, banksektorn är inte lika sårbar längre. Dessutom har landet ett budgetöverskott, medan ekonomin växer med drygt 2 procent.
Men trots de positiva signalerna så höjer professorn i nationalekonomi, Stavros Mavroudeas, varningens finger.
– Ekonomin är fortfarande väldigt sårbar. EU målar upp en positivare bild av vår ekonomi än vad läget egentligen är, menar professor Mavroudeos.
Bild: Yle/Daniel Olin
Han menar att det framför allt är oroande att investeringarna lyser med sin frånvaro.
– Investeringsgraden är på tok för låg, den ligger nära noll. Om vi inte ser en ökning i investeringarna kommer den ekonomiska tillväxten att avstanna. Dessvärre tror jag inte investeringarna kommer att börja rassla in.
Eurogruppen möts – kanske sista akten?
Det är ändå den ekonomiska tillväxten som euroländernas finansministrar tar fasta på när de möts i Luxemburg på torsdag eftermiddag. De ska än en gång skriva ett nytt kapitel i det grekiska skulddramat.
Tanken är att eurogruppen ska fatta beslut om att Grekland från och med den 20 augusti är redo att stå på egna ben. Då skulle Grekland kunna lämna det enorma stödpaket parterna enades om sommaren 2010.
Grekerna skulle alltså för första gången på nästan ett decennium inte längre vara beroende av långivarnas stöd – ett stöd som kommer med tuffa villkor.
Inför mötet säger EU-källor att det är väldigt troligt att eurogruppen kan enas om ett beslut som leder till att Grekland lämnar det tredje nödlåndet.
För många greker skulle det vara en väldigt viktig milstolpe.
– Det skulle vara en fantastisk nyhet om vi slipper långivarnas övervakning och de omänskliga reformerna. Jag hoppas det blir början på något nytt, säger Sotiris Vamvakaris.
Important Day for Greece: Lenders should approve Greece’s exit from the Emergency Loan Program. «A milestone» says optimistic Greeks to Svenska Yle in Athens
published för ungefär 6 timmar sedan . för ungefär 5 timmar sedan
Photo: Patrick Holmström
After eight years of deep economic crisis, three emergency packages, hard reforms and savings, it is thought that Greece will be on its own again in August. But is it hard tested the country without the support of international lenders? Economists raise one’s finger while ordinary greeks for the first time in a long time are optimistic.
Imagine if Greece’s economy would grow as fast as these plants, Sotiris Vamvakaris is joking when he shows me around the garden where he for home use grows everything from vegetables to different spices.
His wife Irini sets out pastries she herself made.
«They are almost as divine as my wife,» says Sotiris Vamvakaris, laughing.
Today, he is easy to laugh, but it was not when the Greek economic crisis began almost a decade ago.
«Everything changed – it was a disaster»
We sit down the table and they tell of the time when their safe middle class lives in ruins. A story they share with very many other Greek families.
– The deal I worked in went bankrupt. Also my husband Sotiris became unemployed, it was a total disaster. Our two sons still went to school, they needed us, but we were very hard. I was depressed, says Irini.
Image: Yle / Daniel Olin
After the first shock, they decided to start fighting.
«It was very difficult, but we managed to get out of the worst by holding together. A lot of strength and love were required, says Sotiris.
Irini is still unemployed, but Sotiris has found a new job and she can handle a salary.
But the economic crisis also meant major changes for the family. The biggest is that the two sons of the couple left Greece, like so many other young Greeks.
The sons live in London, the parents can not afford to visit them.
«The one is working at a company, the other is a waiter at a Greek restaurant in the center of London. They are doing well and have a good salary. But surely I miss them, says Sotiris, wiping away a tear.
But they still mean that they now see positive signals for the first time in several years and feel some optimism.
«I see that it’s going to be better. People no longer say that the glass is half empty but instead half full, says Irini.
«I hope the economic recovery will bring my children and also other young people who left Greece to return,» says Sotiris.
Greece’s economy is growing – but the crisis is not over
The Greeks have survived tough years. Since the crisis began, the country’s gross domestic product fell by a quarter. The country’s debt burden today amounts to 180 percent of GDP.
But after many tough years of hard reforms and savings, Greece is now improving.
Unemployment is on its way down, it has fallen from 27 percent to 20 percent.
Tax collection has improved, the banking sector is not as vulnerable anymore. In addition, the country has a budget surplus, while the economy is growing by just over 2 percent.
But despite the positive signals, Professor of Economics, Stavros Mavroudeas, raises the warning’s finger.
«The economy is still very vulnerable. The EU paints a more positive picture of our economy than the situation really is, says Professor Mavroudeos.
Image: Yle / Daniel Olin
He believes that, above all, it is worrying that the investments are shining with their absence.
– The investment rate is way too low, it is close to zero. If we do not see an increase in investment, economic growth will stop. Unfortunately, I do not think investments will begin to mess up.
The Eurogroup meets – maybe the last act?
Nevertheless, it is the economic growth that the euro area finance ministers find out when meeting in Luxembourg on Thursday afternoon. They will once again write a new chapter in the Greek debt drama.
The idea is that the euro group will decide that Greece will be ready to stand on its own by 20 August. Then Greece could leave the huge support package agreed by the parties in the summer of 2010.
For the first time, for the first time, the Greeks would no longer be dependent on the lenders’ support – a support that comes with tough conditions.
Prior to the meeting, EU sources say it is very likely that the euro group can agree on a decision that leads Greece to leave the third emergency.
To many Greeks, it would be a very important milestone.
«It would be a great news if we do not release lenders’ supervision and the inhumane reforms. I hope it will be the beginning of something new, says Sotiris Vamvakaris.
There is a very clever definition about the poseur (in more derogatory plain English the popinjay). The definition goes as follows: a poseur is someone that is good in one thing which he underestimates because he thinks that he is very good in something else in which he is totally useless.
David Harvey is a typical example of such a poseur. He was a very competent economic geographer but he chose to abandon his field of expertise for becoming a self and media-proclaimed doyen in Marxist Political Economy. Since this turn he went from one blunder to the other but each time achieving a tremendous publicity by the media of the frivolous softy Western Left. He endeavoured in economic analysis making absurd and lousy arguments which discredited Marxism (and were easily disparaged by Mainstreamers like Brad DeLong). He then took on to explain Marx and rectify Marxism with equal incompetence.
He meddled with the theory of imperialism proposing his ‘New Imperialism’ thesis. The latter argues that modern imperialism is based on (violent) direct extraction (expropriation) rather than on indirect economic exploitation. In this way he unwarrantedly equated capitalist imperialism with pre-capitalist imperialism. Pre-capitalist imperialism operated within pre-capitalist modes of production. The latter were systems of exploitation based on relations of violence and power; that is on the direct forceful obligation of the exploited classes. A serf was not asked if he wanted to be one; he was obliged to be. On the contrary, capitalism is a system of exploitation based on the economy; that is on indirect economic exploitation. No capitalist obliges a labourer to become his employee (and thus be exploited by the capitalist). The only thing that obliges the latter is his inability to sustain himself otherwise. Harvey’s ‘New Imperialism’ inspired several other equally superficial theorists (for example some Marxisant proponents of ‘financialisation’) in following his utterly erroneous path.
Harvey also endeavoured in Marxist crisis theory with equally dismal results. He argued that Marx had not a theory of falling profit rate and advanced his own caricature of a crisis explanation. His first argument – very popular within the softy pinky Western Left – has been vigorously refuted by many Marxist economists. His own explanation of the recent crisis is equally absurd. He actually maintains that modern capitalism is in permanent crisis but this crisis is shifting from one geographical location to the other. Of course, he is totally unable to define a causal mechanism of the crisis and to offer convincing empirical evidence (apart from descriptive simplicities).
It appears that Harvey’s last endeavour is to make the grandiose declaration that Marx did not ascribed to the Labour Theory of Value. The following excellent piece by P.Cockshott offers a very accurate refutation of Harvey’s new publicity stand.
Being a poseur attracts publicity – and support from dubious centres – and Harvey basks in this. However, it does not advance neither Marxism nor the cause of the Left.
It seems absurd that one has to answer this question.
It was so thoroughly answered by previous generations of economists in the affirmative, that it would seem unnecessary even to examine the issue. But David Harvey has recently posted a short article claiming that Marx was an opponent of the labour theory
It is widely believed that Marx adapted the labour theory of value from Ricardo as a founding concept for his studies of capital accumulation. Since the labour theory of value has been generally discredited, it is then often authoritatively stated that Marx s theories are worthless. But nowhere, in fact, did Marx declare his allegiance to the labour theory of value. That theory belonged to Ricardo, who recognized that it was deeply problematic even as he insisted that the question of value was critical to the study of political economy. On the few occasions where Marx comments directly on this matter,1 he refers to value theory and not to the labour theory of value. So what, then, was Marx s distinctive value theory and how does it differ from the labour theory of value?( )
It is difficult to take this seriously but as Mike Roberts has done a reply, I probably should do likewise and type a brief response.
Harvey claims that the labour theory of value is generally discredited. But in what sense?
It is correct to say that the theory is not viewed with favour in economics departments, but that is for political reasons – the labour theory of value came, since Gray and Marx, came to be associated with socialism. Since academic economists, in general, did not want to be tainted with the socialist label they were at pains to distance themselves from the theory. But none of them ever adduced any empirical evidence to refute it. It was socially discredited but not empirically refuted.
If one wants to refute a theory about the world you have to show that the theory makes incorrect empirical predictions. Eratosthenes refuted the theory that the Earth was flat and confirmed the theory that it is round by observing that when the sun was overhead in Syene it was at an angle of 7°12′ to the vertical in Alexandria, implying that the earth was curved with a circumference of 25,000 miles. If the earth had been flat the angle of the sun would not have varied as you went north.
The labour theory of value predicts that the prices of commodities will vary proportionately with their labour content. Refuting this should be easy, just show that in fact their prices do not vary with labour content in this way. Did the economists opposed to the labour theory of value do this?
Did they hell, they did not even bother to collect the data to do the tests. So for a century after Marx, the theory was ‘discredited’, but never empirically refuted.
As soon as economists started to collect data to test the theory, which depended on reasonably good economic statistics of whole economies, what did they find?
They found the Ricardo and Marx had been right all along. A whole bunch of studies[18,17,5,13,15,19,1,4,2] since the 1980s have shown that the labour theory of value is very good at predicting prices. Far from being refuted by the evidence, it has been confirmed.
Harvey is like a flat-earther after Erastosthenes, denying the Earth is round on theological grounds.
Harvey next complains that Marx nowhere declares his allegiance to the labour theory of value. True enough, since at the time Marx was writing, that was the only theory going. It simply was the theory of value. It was only afterwards that the alternative marginal utility or neo-classical theory of value was established. After Jevons economists distinguished between the classical or labour theory of value and the neoclassical or marginalist theory of value. But it is ridiculous to expect Marx to have taken sides in a debate that only started after Capital was published(1867). At the time he was writing it was widely accepted that labour was the source of value. Even Jevons the founder of marginalism still accepted that prices were proportional to labour1, thinking that his marginal utility theory gave further support to this time honoured assumption.
Harvey promises to explain what Marx’s theory of value actually is, but nowhere in his article does he do this. That is because it would be impossible to do this without revealing that the theory of value in Marx is identical in all major predictions to that of Ricardo.
What did Ricardo’s theory say?
Did Marx agree with him?
When comparing theorists, especially ones who originally wrote in distinct languages, you should not pay too much attention to the precise vocabulary that they use. What is important is the relations between the concepts they deploy and the relationships that the theorists predict will hold in the real world. When you look at this you see that Marx followed Ricardo’s value theory very closely.
There are 4 key components to their value theory on which both authors agree:
The theories are therefore substantially identical in the empirical predictions they make, differing only slightly in terminology. Points 1,2,3 are validated by the empirical data in the studies cited earlier. Point 4 is poorly supported by or refuted by the empirical data [5,19,3] . Marx and Ricardo say the same thing where they are both right and say the same thing where they are both wrong.
So yes Marx has a labour theory of value as Ricardo had. The greater part of this theory is not refuted by the evidence, it is confirmed by it.
This does not mean that Marx made no contributions. Major innovations in his thought were:
These are all significant innovations that did distinguish him from his predecessors. There is no need to pretend innovation by Marx in value theory, a topic where he just rigorously used Ricardo’s concepts.
But what about abstract/concrete labour?
Was this distinction not an innovation on Marx’s part?
Well the specific phrase ‘concrete labour’ was different, but the relevant conceptual distinction between the two was present in Adam Smith’s work.
Smith simply uses the term ‘labour’ unqualified where Marx sometimes says abstract labour10. Smith specifically says that when he is talking of labour in this way he is talking of labour in the abstract11. When Smith discusses the division of labour, he is discussing the division of the abstract labour into what he terms ‘varieties’ of labour12 or ‘sorts’ of labour13. This is the same distinction that Marx is making when, using the slightly different term, he talks of abstracting from concrete labours or kinds of labour14.
In tabular form we have:
|variety, kind, palpable||kind, concrete|
The same conceptual distinction is being made here between the different kinds of activities into which the labour is divided, and labour in the abstract, or the abstract notion of labour.
W Paul Cockshott, A Cottrell, and GJ Michaelson. Testing Labour Value Theory with input/output tables. Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde, 1993.
W Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell. The scientific status of the labour theory of value. IWGVT conference at the Eastern Economic Association meeting, in April, 1997.
W Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell. Does marx need to transform. Marxian economics: A reappraisal, 2:70-85, 1998.
W Paul Cockshott and Allin F Cottrell. Labour time versus alternative value bases: a research note. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21(4):545-549, 1997.
Nils Fröhlich. Labour values, prices of production and the missing equalisation tendency of profit rates: evidence from the german economy. Cambridge journal of economics, 37(5):1107-1126, 2013.
David Harvey. Marx’s refusal of the labour theory of value, 2018.
William S. Jevons. Theory of Political Economy. Sentry Press, 1871.
William Stanley Jevons. Brief account of a general mathematical theory of political economy, by william stanley jevons journal of the royal statistical society, london, xxix (june 1866), pp. 282-87.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 29:282-87, 1866.
Karl Marx. Value, price, and profit. CH Kerr & Company, 1910.
Karl Marx. Capital, volume 1. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1954. Original English edition published in 1887.
Karl Marx. Capital, volume 3. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1971.
Ronald L Meek. Studies in the labor theory of value, volume 428. NYU Press, 1956.
David Ricardo. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. In P. Sraffa, editor, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, volume 1. Cambridge, 1951.
Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations. 1974.
Lefteris Tsoulfidis and Dimitris Paitaridis. Monetary expressions of labor time and market prices: Theory and evidence from china, japan and korea. Review of Political Economy, 2016.
David Zachariah. Testing the labor theory of value in Sweden. http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/DZ_article1.pdf, 2004.
David Zachariah. Labour Value and Equalisation of Profit Rates. Indian Development Review, 4(1):1-21, 2006.
“thus we have proved that commodities will exchange in any market in the ratio of the quantities produced by the same quantity of labour.” (page 187)
2“If the quantity of labour realized in commodities, regulate their exchangeable value, every increase of the quantity of labour must augment the value of that commodity on which it is exercised, as every diminution must lower it.” Chap. 1 , Sec. 1
3“If we consider commodities as values, we consider them exclusively under the single aspect of realized, fixed, or, if you like, crystallized social labour. In this respect they can differ only by representing greater or smaller quantities of labour, as, for example, a greater amount of labour may be worked up in a silken handkerchief than in a brick. But how does one measure quantities of labour? By the time the labour lasts, in measuring the labour by the hour, the day, etc. Of course, to apply this measure, all sorts of labour are reduced to average or simple labour as their unit. We arrive, therefore, at this conclusion. A commodity has a value, because it is a crystallization of social labour. The greatness of its value, or its relative value, depends upon the greater or less amount of that social substance contained in it; that is to say, on the relative mass of labour necessary for its production. The relative values of commodities are, therefore, determined by the respective quantities or amounts of labour, worked up, realized, fixed in them. The correlative quantities of commodities which can be produced in the same time of labour are equal. Or the value of one commodity is to the value of another commodity as the quantity of labour fixed in the one is to the quantity of labour fixed in the other.” (, Sec. VI)
4“Not only the labour applied immediately to commodities affect their value, but the labour also which is bestowed on the implements, tools, and buildings, with which much labour is assisted”Chap. 1 Sec. 2
5“In calculating the exchangeable value of a commodity we must add to the quantity of labour previously worked up in the raw material of the commodity, and the labour bestowed on the implements, tools, machinery, and buildings, with which such labour is assisted.”(Marx op. cit)
6See Ricardo’s criticism of Adam Smith for confusing the labour content of commodities for the labour that a commodity will exchange against.
“A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.”(, page 23 MIA pdf version)
“The greater part of people, too, understand what is means by a quantity of a particular commodity, than by a quantity of labour. The one is a plain palpable object; the other an abstract notion, which though it can be made sufficiently intelligible, is not altogether so natural and obvious.” (, page 23 Kindle edition)
“What a variety of labour, too, is necessary in order to produce the tools of the meanest of theose workmen! To say nothing of such compicated machines as the ship of the sailr, the mill of the fuller, or even the loom of the weaver, let us consider only what a variety of labour is requisite in order to form tat very simple machine, the shears with which the shepherd clips the wool. The miner, the builder of the furnace for smelting the ore, the feller of the timber, the burner of the charcoal to be made use of in the smelting-house, the brickmaker, the bricklayer, the workmen who attend the furnace, the millwright, the forger the smith, must all of them join their different arts in order to produce them.” .(, page 12-13 Kindle edition)
“The spinner is almost always a distinct person from the weaver; but the ploughman, the harrower, the sower of the seed, and the reaper of the corn, are often the same. The occasions for those different sorts of labour returning with the different seasons of the year, it is impossible that one man should be constantly employed in any one of them. This impossibility of making so complet and entire a separation of all the different branches of labour employed in agriculture, is perhaps the reason why the improvement of the productive powers of labour, in this art, does not always keep pace with their improvement in manufactures.”, page 9-10 Kindle edition)
14“If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.”(, page 28 MIA pdf version)
Εκδήλωση – συζήτηση:
17 Απρίλη 2018 ώρα: 18.30-21.00
Αμφιθέατρο Σάκη Καράγιωργα ΙΙ
Λεωφόρος Συγγρού 136 Αθήνα
ΚΕΝΤΡΟ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗΣ ΜΟΡΦΟΛΟΓΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗΣ (ΚΕΚΜΟΚΟΠ)
Χαιρετισμοί: Κοσμήτορας Σχολής Πολιτικών Επιστημών: Ιωάννης Κουζής
Πρόεδρος Τμήματος Κοινωνικής Πολιτικής: Δέσποινα Παπαδοπούλου
Συντονισμός Συζήτησης: Τάσος Τσακίρογλου (Εφημερίδα των Συντακτών)
Καθηγητής Διονύσης Γράβαρης (Διευθυντής ΚΕΚΜΟΚΟΠ): Κοινωνικές και Οικονομικές μεταβολές στην Ελλάδα της κρίσης
Καθηγητής Σταύρος Μαυρουδέας. (Συγγραφέας κεφ. 5 στην έκδοση Greece In the 21st Century. The politics and Economics of a Crisis, Routledge Books): Ανταγωνιστικές ερμηνείες και στρατηγικές για την ελληνική κρίση και το πρόβλημα του παραγωγικού μοντέλου
Οικονομικός Αναλυτής Ηλίας Ιωακείμογλου (Συγγραφέας κεφ. 6 στην έκδοση Greece In the 21st Century. The politics and Economics of a Crisis, Routledge Books): Εσωτερική υποτίμηση και κρίση ηγεμονίας (2010-2016)
Δρ. Τόλης Μαλάκος, Research fellow in philosophy. Center for contemporary studies in Ethics and Politics(CASEP), London Metropolitan University (Συγγραφέας κεφ.9 στην έκδοση Greece In the 21st Century. The politics and Economics of a Crisis, Routledge Books) Κατηγορώντας τον άλλο. Μία διερεύνηση των πολιτισμικών και πολιτικών συνθηκών της ελληνικής κρίσης
Σχολιασμός των Επιμελητών του τόμου: Greece In the 21st Century. The politics and Economics of a Crisis, Routledge Books, Βασίλη Φούσκα και Κώστα Δημουλά
20.45-21.00 Κλείσιμο εκδήλωσης
Στα πλαίσια της σειράς διαλέξεων «Διάλεξη του μήνα» που δοργανώνει το ΝΑΡ, θα πραγματοποιηθεί συζήτηση την Παρασκευή 16 Μαρτίου, στις 7.00 μ.μ. στα γραφεία του ΝΑΡ (Κλεισόβης 9, Πλ. Κάνιγγος, Αθήνα), με θέμα «Συζητάμε για τις μαρξιστικές θεωρίες για τις οικονομικές κρίσεις«.
Εισηγητής: Σταύρος Μαυρουδέας, καθηγητής του Πανεπιστημίου Μακεδονίας.
Συντονίζει ο σ. Βασίλης Μηνακάκης, μέλος της ΠΕ του ΝΑΡ
Ακολουθεί το βίντεο της βιβλιοπαρουσίασης του συλλογικού τόμου ‘Greek Capitalism in Crisis: Marxist Analyses’ που επιμελήθηκε ο Σταύρος Μαυρουδέας και εκδόθηκε από τον εκδ. οίκο Routledge. Η βιβλιοπαρουσίαση έγινε στα πλαίσια του συνεδρίου ‘Russian Revolution Centenary: Reflections on the 21st Century’ (26th -29th October 2017 Corinth, Greece) την Παρασκευή 27/10/2017.
Επίσης, και πριν το βίντεο της παρουσίασης, το ακόλουθο εκπτωτικό κουπόνι του Routledge δίνει μία έκπτωση 20% στην τιμή του βιβλίου καθώς και οδηγίες άμεσης παραγγελίας του.
Το βίντεο της βιβλιοπαρουσίασης στην οποία προήδρευσε η Μ.Νικολακάκη και μίλησαν οι Στ.Μαυρουδέας, Θ.Μανιάτης, Χ.Παπαθεοδώρου και Φ.Παπαδάτος.
‘The Conundrum of the EU-IMF Economic Adjustment Programmes for Greece’: a lecture by S.Mavroudeas, Dipartimento di Economia Politica, Universita di Siena
Mercoledì, 27 Settembre, 2017 – 16:00
Magnificent office view