All that's fine, actually not, but you make an accusation, disparaging some on the list for holding to certain aspects that Marx clearly developed, and then when challenged, you provide not a shred of evidence.
No, I don't think Marx established a science of economics. Marx analyzes the basis for the social overthrow, overcoming, of economics. But that overthrow just doesn't drop out of thin air. It develops out of the real contradictions of capital-- between use and exchange value, between means and relations of production, between and in the exchange of itself with wage-labor. I don't know how anyone can say that the core of Marx's work is in his critique of political economy, but then not actually use the elements of that critique to analyze what historically takes place, and worse, make accusations against those who do use that critique to explicate the movement of capital. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" <[email protected]> To: "David Schanoes" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Paul LeBlanc: Why I Am Joining the ISO > > > "S. Artesian" wrote: >> >> >> Can you give some examples of the grimness of this "hold," since Marx in >> Vol >> 3 of Capital, his Critique of Political Economy, refers, explains the law >> of >> the FROP? Can you give an example of some huge fantasies posted to this >> list that are little better than establishment in understanding current >> conditions by those who grimly accept the FROP as an economic law? > > > I am not really interested, on the whole, in debating details of > Marxology. I am interested only in noting for othrs to consider or > ignore as they please, the _existnce_ of a number of distinct > traditions in the hisotyr of "Marxism." ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
