<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>EconStor Collection:</title>
    <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/157767</link>
    <description />
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:37:52 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:date>2026-04-29T08:37:52Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Capital as Power in the 21st Century. A Conversation</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/312032</link>
      <description>Title: Capital as Power in the 21st Century. A Conversation
Authors: Hudson, Michael; Nitzan, Jonathan; Di Muzio, Tim; Fix, Blair
Abstract: On December 3, 2024, Michael Hudson met with capital-as-power researchers Jonathan Nitzan, Tim Di Muzio, and Blair Fix to discuss the intersections between their two lines of research. What follows is a transcript of the conversation. A recording of the discussion is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBOU4xBg2pA.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/312032</guid>
      <dc:date>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Manuscripts Don't Burn</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/279832</link>
      <description>Title: Manuscripts Don't Burn
Authors: Bichler, Shimshon; Nitzan, Jonathan
Abstract: From the article: The French Revolution changed the world. In the new order, the masters no longer need Monsieur Fouche and the thought police. They don’t need guillotines to clip brains and scissors to censor pamphlets. They don’t need strategic-studies institutes to manage oppression and navigate conflict. Instead, they prefer to subsidize ‘cultural pluralism’ and ‘critical studies’, support centres for democracy and privatization, and promote civil-society networks and global NGOs. They are no longer afraid of words. Or so we are told....</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2023 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/279832</guid>
      <dc:date>2023-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Capital As Power Approach. An Invited-then-Rejected Interview with Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/279831</link>
      <description>Title: The Capital As Power Approach. An Invited-then-Rejected Interview with Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan
Authors: Bichler, Shimshon; Nitzan, Jonathan
Abstract: Preface. This interview was commissioned in October 2019 for a special issue on ‘Accumulation and Politics: Approaches and Concepts’ to be published by the Revue de la régulation. We submitted the text in March 2020, only to learn two months later that it won’t be published. The problem, we were informed, wasn’t the content, which everyone agreed was ‘highly interesting and stimulating’. It was the format. To begin with, the text was suddenly deemed ‘too long’. Although the length was agreed on beforehand, the special-issue editors — or maybe it was their bosses on the Editorial Board — now insisted that we cut it by no less than two-thirds. They also instructed us to make our answers more ‘interview-like’ and ‘personal’. Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, they demanded that we change our ‘tone’, which they found ‘unfair’ and ‘one-sided’. Translation: we should take a hike. This encounter with two-minded editors wasn’t our first. In another Review of Capital as Power paper, titled ‘Manuscripts Don’t Burn’, we sketch our history with Jekyll &amp; Hyde editors who often used ‘length’ and ‘tone’ to reject articles they had invited but couldn’t stomach. But first, the original interview, in full.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2023 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/279831</guid>
      <dc:date>2023-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Business of Strategic Sabotage</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/268304</link>
      <description>Title: The Business of Strategic Sabotage
Authors: Bichler, Shimshon; Nitzan, Jonathan
Abstract: In a recent article, Nicolas D. Villarreal claims that our empirical analysis of the relation between business power and industrial sabotage in the United States is unpersuasive, if not deliberately misleading. Specifically, he argues that we cherry-pick specific data definitions and smoothing windows to ‘achieve the desired results’; that these ‘results are driven by statistical aberrations’; and that his own choice of variables pretty much invalidates our conclusions. In this brief response, we offer an easy-to-follow, step-by-step reply to his complaints.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2023 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/268304</guid>
      <dc:date>2023-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

