Infrastructure does not micromanage the economy
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
I know that's right. Well, well, well.
You might want to take a look at that collection of articles, _Dialectical
Contradictions : Contemporary Marxist Discussions_. Somebody mentions, maybe
Lawler, the square root of negative one. There is an article by Narski
there.
Marquit (1981)
WL: The issue is your definition of history as class struggle. I reply
that history is not class struggle but rather the progressive accumulation
of productive forces and society moving in class antagonism. The bourgeoisie
role in revolutionizing production is irrelevant to the definition of
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production,
by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the
most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities
are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with
[Bibliographic note: Following is the conclusion of a lecture that the
logician Alonzo Church presented at Harvard University on April 18,
1958. In this excerpt, which was first published on the web site of
Cathy Legg, Church was arguing against the nominalistic approach of the
philosophers Nelson
At 10:09 AM 9/18/2005 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
I know that's right. Well, well, well.
You might want to take a look at that collection of articles, _Dialectical
Contradictions : Contemporary Marxist Discussions_. Somebody mentions, maybe
Lawler, the square root of negative one. There is an
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:54:33 -0400 Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The upshot, I think, is that even if Priest can prove Marquite wrong
in
arguing for contradictions in 'the same respect', that one point
does not
render his analysis of the issues involved any subtler, nor does
There is an inherent contradiction in all efforts to represent, as the
process is fundamentally establishing an identity between two different
things - the thing represented and the thing being used to represent. I
think this is the contradiction that always pops up in math , logic ,
dialectics
CB: If Marx had thought changing the technological regime were the focus for
revolutionary activity , _Capital_ would have been a book of
engineering-physics, not political economy.
The following demonstrates that followers of Marx and Engels would focus on
changing property relations,
Correction
The issue in discussing Marx meaning of the productive forces in conflict
with the relations of production, and what it means for us at our moment of
history, has never been the form, content, or substance of ones revolutionary
activity as communist or Marxists.
Should read
The
10 matches
Mail list logo
