WL,
I've written my comments under the appropriate paragraphs below.
Peace and the strength to preserve it,
Victor
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 1:44
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fettering
1. No
CB,
I'd also like to read how you justify this theory.
Victor
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 2:06
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Specter of a Soviet-Style Crisis:
Evidencesof Fette...
The
Waistline2
CB: How you gonna say with a straight face that the Industrial Revolution
was the Industrial Social Revolution, or that Marx treated it as a social
revolution ?
:)
WL:Comment
Obviously you are joking. The industrial revolution is a social revolution
and the industrial social
My review is part of a much larger project, which has to do with te relation
of logic and reality, and beyond that, the fragmentation of knowledge under
conditions of alienation. That would be the marxist angle that iunterests
me, rather than advocacy of 'Marxism' per se. Graham Priest is far
Waistline2
CBThe trend in U.S. property relations is to move the factories further
and
further from the locus of the owners, as a byproduct of running the plants
away
from the U.S. workers. Effectively, this is fettering the development of the
material productive forces _in_ the
U.S. national
V: You are assuming of course that we know how or what kinds of productive
forces WILL prevail in communist society.
If you take your model of the communist mode of production from the late and
mostly unlamented People's Democratic Republics and Soviets as well as from
the various more
In other words, the bourgeoisie doesn't fetter the development of the
material productive forces outside of the U.S.national territory where it
runs the plants away to. It buildsup the productive forces in Mexico, Korea,
and other places to which industrial production has been moved. It has not
CB: How you gonna say with a straight face that the Industrial Revolution
was the Industrial Social Revolution, or that Marx treated it as a social
revolution ?
Comment
I am saying with a stright face that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels treated
the Industrial Revolution as a Social Revolution
I don't understand this at all. In any case, I favor correspondence over
coherence theories of truth.
-Original Message-
From: A. Mani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sep 15, 2005 5:45 PM
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re: Marxism-Thaxis Digest, Vol 23, Issue
Ralph D:. In any case, I favor correspondence over coherence theories of
truth.
CB: What's the difference ?
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
Dear Ralph,
Sorry you are puzzled - the problem could be email shorthand.
On your first response, Priest says that we can say true things about
the world in the form 'P-P' (eg 'The sky is blue and not blue' or
'His head is bald and not bald') - whether this counts as saying much
about
I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
At 12:19 PM 9/17/2005 +0930, Ian Hunt wrote:
Dear Ralph,
Sorry you are puzzled - the problem could be email shorthand.
On your first response, Priest says that we can say true things about the
world in the form 'P-P' (eg 'The sky is
12 matches
Mail list logo
