I take it that this is a circumlocution intended to soften the impact. While I'm not against this sort of tactic when need dictates, this seems a damaging example: Marx, I think, was not (just) a political economist, classical or otherwise. Julian -----Original Message----- From: Gerald_A_Levy [mailto:Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com] Sent: 13 February 2001 17:25 To: ope-l Subject: [OPE-L:4886] Re: Was Marx a Copernican or what? A short addendum to [OPE-L: 4860]: I previously noted a tendency by some to identify Marx with classical political economy. I saw an example of this today: in the current course catalog for the Graduate Faculty of the New School University there is a course offered in the Economics Department titled simply "Classical Political Economy". Yet, the course description makes it quite clear that the course is *entirely* devoted to Marx's _Capital_ (I guess it is a replacement for the old 106-107 sequence). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST