But Cohen is hard work. You can't just skim him. You
have to work through it, page by page, argument by argument.
G.A. Cohen's Marxism is a curious business. He tries to restore Marxism to
its "orthodox" roots but his project ends up as a defense of a "stagist"
conception rather than of
Michael P wrote a while ago:
"Wynne's work is based on basic accounting principles and so has the
potential of being understood, and maybe even convincing. He shows what's
behind the boom, and shows what would have to occur for it to continue, and
that such a scenario is unlikely, but even
I *finally* stop doing vulgar materialism and start doing cultural
studies, and he wants facts...
As a matter of fact, cultural studies so-called is very interested in facts.
But, many times for the worst, it's not interested in their fact-ness. It is
interested in the way that facts create
I haven't read Cohen's work but I want to comment on Louis's quote from
Marx. By itself, I agree that the passage is abstract, but it sums up an
argument that Marx makes time and again and develops more fully
elsewhere. That is, Marx *does* have a stage theory, but it can't be
deduced from the
Justin repeats my comments:
I have and do. Alison, who is a friend of mine, btw, would be
disappointed if you took the lesson from her book that Firestone doesn't
count, and indeedd, has nothing to teach historical materialists, or
isn't one in her way.
I did *not* say that Firestone did
Rod Hay wrote:
Since I, unlike Lou, am not able to consult Marx upon what he 'had in
mind.', lacking as I do the power to make the dead speak, I will confine
my comments to what Marx actually wrote.
Since Marx wrote contradictory things in respect to this issue, confining
yourself to what
The status of stages theory in Marx's writing is ambiguous. Passages
from different writings lead to different conclusions. But I think the
general trend of his writings was against a theory of mechanistic or
organic progression through a predetermined series of stages. And there
does seem to be
Making a distinction between transition from one stage to another and
transitions within a mode of production, is to make a distinction that cannot
be maintained, at least in the historical record. There is no sharp
distinction between modes of production. Both the relations of production and
the
Carrol Cox wrote:
In fact, it would
be possible to write many volumes of marxist social analysis without
ever using the concept of ideology. It is useful but not necessary
for marxist thought. (One could, for example, invoke the concept
of "common sense.")
Invoke common sense against ideology,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/423438.asp?0nm=N34C#BODY
MSNBC says that the Cuban economy is doing poorly, largely because
commodity prices are so low. Does anyone know much about that?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail
Doug Henwood wrote:
Invoke common sense against ideology, or common sense as a kind of ideology?
As a kind of ideology. The concept of ideology *could* be a powerful one,
but it seems that among any three people there are seven different conceptions
of it. But a reasonably large proportion
--- Sponsor's Message --
Play sports? How GOOD are you? Create your free personal Scorecard.
Keep your sports stats online. Compare yourself with others.
http://click.topica.com/lBbz8SnrbAjwjxa/ScoreCardUSA1
Imagine that the households hold large amounts of government debt as
assets.
Other things being equal, if the government runs surpluses, then those
assets
disappear.
I get that. I don't get why the disappearance of those assets automatically
means that the wealth once held in them becomes a
No doubt we read different works when we read Marx. However, I do not need
"orthodox Marxism" to find interesting things to say about Marx; I have never
engaged it in print except in a sideswipe. I have written, dor example, about
Cohen and Elster, about Roemer, about Fisk, and about Marx
Louis writes:
G.A. Cohen's Marxism is a curious business. He tries to restore Marxism to
its "orthodox" roots but his project ends up as a defense of a "stagist"
conception rather than of anything Marx had in mind. Once he establishes
this rather bogus "orthodoxy", he speculates on the
In a message dated 6/24/00 2:33:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bebel, like Kautsky, was a social democrat. Zetkin, like Luxemburg, was a
socialist. Their approach to _Woman Question_ differed accordingly.
Both Z and L criticized the party line othodoxy represented by
I must not have made myself clear. Imagine that a certain number of gov't
bonds come due each year. Once the gov't goes into a surplus, bonds expire
without being replaced by new bonds. So, household holding of gov't debt falls
-- ceterus paribus.
"christian a. gregory" wrote:
Imagine that
In a message dated 6/24/00 7:44:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Justin is arguing that "Marx argues that, e,g., ideology
promotes ruling class rule." I think that's an empty statement in that
there is no way that persons with radically contradictory standpoints
can
It becomes a liability, I guess, only in the sense that it is a subtraction
from the previous credit.
"christian a. gregory" wrote:
Imagine that the households hold large amounts of government debt as
assets.
Other things being equal, if the government runs surpluses, then those
assets
19 matches
Mail list logo
