Re: [Pen-l] Roemer & Capitalism [Was: Conventional Wisdom on Oil] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Progressive Economics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Roemer & Capitalism [Was: Conventional Wisdom on Oil] From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:13:24 -0500 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Winslow wrote: > > Charles Brown wrote: > > > Yes, it does. There is a quote in Vol. 3, ( which I have lost track > > of) where he says the ultimate cause of all crises of overproduction > > is > > what I say above. > > I realize he claims that. My point was that it's inconsistent with > the other claims to which I pointed. There were reasons Marx never published Vos. II & II -- or finished them. One of the reaons would have been the continuing existence of unresolved inconsistencies. Another would have been that on some questions he had not at all made up his own mind. In any case, one cannot arrive at an understanding (marxist or otherwise) of present-day capitalism by quoting passages from Marx. ^^^^ CB: More importantly, one cannot arrive at an understanding of present-day capitalism without reading and understanding the fundamental principles that Marx set out in his writings on capitalism, which are optimally formulated in _Capital_. Of course, quoting Marx is merely a way of communicating understanding of those principles, and disdaining or discouraging quoting Marx undermines intelligent discussion and understanding of present day capitalism, under a phony tact of misrepresenting use of quotation as " a substitute for thinking"; and as an excuse from someone who has not thoroughly studied Marxism, as Engels warned it necessary to sufficiently grasp it. Carrol functions essentially as a phony authority on Marxism on these lists. ^^^^^ ^^^ This from soneone who still believes that no better account exists of the fundamental dynamic of capitalism than Marx's Critique of Political Economy. ^^^ CB: Critique of Political Economy in _Capital_ ? Or are you referring to Contribution to Critque. If the latter this would be contrary to Marx's own judgment, or else why would he write _Capital_ after "Contribution" > Why wouldn't he publish the latter ? ^^^^^ Still -- the best does not quite equal the word of God. Carrol This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
