[ show plain text ]
I'd have to say that both reasons are crucial Andrew. There are many people
who don't count as counter-revolutionaries who disagree with what
revolutionaries read as Marx. I'm one of them. I base my position on a very
thorough reading of his economic works, and yet I disagree on their
interpretation with people who have made an equally extensive reading.
Steve
>From: "Andrew_Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com>
>Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
>To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
>Subject: [OPE-L:3091] Re: Jerry, Don't be Aghast!!!
>Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:35:17 -0400
>
>Steve Keen wrote
>
>"Unfortunately, what also set Marx apart was the lack of a good editor,
>which is why we're still debating what his analytic system was 130 years
>later!"
>
>
>Beg to disagree. We're still debating because Marx's work is a powerful
>weapon in the struggle for human freedom, and it is crucial to the
>counterrevolution that it be rejected, truncated, revised, subsumed
>into other doctrines, etc.
>
>
>Andrew Kliman
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT