4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST and some of its critical and reconstructive implications. Our concentrating on this narrow issue of distribution and value may appear unduly restrictive. However, the reasons for such a choice are the following. Considering the extant alternative economic theories, we notice that the explanation of capitalist value (and distribution) lies invariably at the base in the sense that it is only after clarifying this ground the further explanations of accumulation, or technical change or international trade etc, are attempted, consistent with the foundation. This appears to be the sequence in almost all theoretical works, whether in political economy (Ricardo, Marx) or neoclassical writings (Marshall, WickselL Walras, Bohm Bawerk, Fisher). In fact, the broad divide between theories could therefore be suggested precisely on their differing explanations of distribution and the related schemes of price determination. It will be further seen that the weaknesses mainly in the underlying distribution theory are further projected into the theoretical analysis of accumulation or, say, of technical change. Secondly, viewing the history of economic theories we notice that the prime mover that propelled them in new directions or routed out older frameworks— whether prematurely or justifiably—is the explanation of capitalist profits. Explicitly or implicitly, it has been the foundering rock on which theories have been overturned. Ricardo began his investigation, in part, dissatisfied with Smith's explanation of profits as determined by 'competition of capitals'; Marx criticised Ricardo for his neglect of 'constant capital' and his tendency to equate 'surplus value' with profits. Nevertheless, common to them was the approach which Marx developed in the advanced form of interdependent production, formulating 'prices of production'. It was again the not-entirely-successful resolution of the 'transformation problem' that was used by Marx's critics to fault the surplus- based explanation of profit and led to the abandonment of the entire approach on apparently analytical grounds. Recent attacks on neoclassical theory have strongly emerged against their theory of distribution (profit). It would seem therefore that the viability and logical consistency of the theory of profit have played a crucial role in the continuance of a theory. We choose, therefore, the theory of distribution (profit) as a discriminating line dividing theories. This paper has three parts. In Part I, we present very briefly the nature of the recent resurgence of classical political economy as an alternative analytical system, with a distinctive structure. Included also is a rough outline of the fluctuating fortunes of theories and our view that the surplus-based approach of Marx has possibilities of fruitful extensions, both in terms of developing a logically coherent body of theory and as handling better the changing historical conditions within which economies function. Part II carries forward the idea that a consistent explanation of distribution is central to a logically sustainable analysis of accumulation and views, in that light, the 'first crisis'—the Keynesian challenge to