> >^^^^^^^ > >Rakesh, this post kind of undercuts your claim to understand Marx's >theory and ideas more deeply than others here. Marx's theory of the >business cycle was not a particularly important expression of either >1), or 3) that you list above. The business cycle is involved in 2) >,but is not its only aspect.
Charles, did I say the business cycle was its only or main aspect? And did I say that I understand Marx more deeply than Fred Moseley? No, I said I understood Marxian theory more deeply than Carrol Cox. rb ______ This reduction of historical materialism to a silly technological determinism (merely replacing the xtian god with the god technology) is probably why on the whole Rakesh is so uninteresting to read. Carrol ______ obviously Carrol did not have the patience to read all the way to point 3. Nor does his counter insult vitiate the fact that Marx's contribution was not, as he ignorantly claimed, to historicize economics. RB
