In [6501] Paul Z quoted from Engels 'Preface' to Volume 2 and asked:
> Did Lavosier 'build' on phlogistic chemistry? I don't think so.
Agreed, but all would agree that chemistry advanced scientifically
after Lavoisier and that subsequent advances in chemistry built upon
the pioneering work of Lavoisier and others. Some of those who
advanced the fields of chemistry and what would become physics
included Berthollet, Dalton, Gay-Lussac, Avogadro, Davy,
Berzelius, Mendelejeff, Bunsen, Raleigh, Ramsey, Arrhenius,
Bequerel, M&P Curie, Rutherford, Thomson, Wilson, Einstein,
Fischer, WA & WL Bragg, H Moseley (any relation?), Wohler,
Fermi, Pauling, Sanger, Seaborg, Crick and many others. Isn't
this a characteristic of *any* science -- that it continually advances
and builds upon what has already been learned and in some cases
rejects false understandings (as did Lavosier)?
All would agree *in principle* that our scientific understanding of
capitalism was not buried with Marx,
BUT
* WHO ADVANCED OUR UNDERSTANDING OF
CAPITALISM SINCE MARX?
* and what were their contributions to that understanding that
weren't already IN Marx's writings?
* Also: what contributions to our understanding of that
subject matter concerned something *other than* attempting
to develop our understanding of how capitalism has
changed and developed since Marx's time?
* Also: is there *any* major part of Marx's theory that the
development of subsequent thought shows needs to be
modified or rejected?
If Marxism is a science then all of these questions should
be able to be answered -- even if our answers are different.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EST