> Let me try to be more careful in distinguishing what I think is in > Marx's text -- what his own work on expanded reproduction > proves -- and what is others' doing. In my view, by proving that > Ic is not limited by the extent of the market, Marx's own work > proves that Dept. I can grow more quickly than Dept. II. Marx > seems not to have written that his schema prove this, but I think > they do so nonetheless; the proof is there "in Marx himself." I'm at a loss, Andrew. Where does Marx "prove" that Ic (means of production in Dept. I? -- please confirm the meaning of the symbol) is not limited by the extent of the market (without referring to 'stretching out' of the Illustration 1 in Marx)? Note that I'm still not interested in extended reproduction, only the issue of what constitutes "proof". > So while I agree that political motivations are behind the whole > debate, but that doesn't mean we can't apply objective and > rational methods to assess arguments and evidence. It seems to me > that people's motives have nothing to do with whether their > arguments, theories, etc. are true or false. I have no such overriding confidence in intellectuals; how come I cannot convince my colleagues to learn Marx?. Nor do I think there is an "absolute" truth that is knowable (Lenin comes to mind here). Paul Z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST