> Marx was a revolutionary decades before he developed his critique > of political economy and M&E's historical materialist explanation of > the revolutionary role of the proletariat was presented in the > _Manifesto of the Communist Party_ (1848). Aren't the 1844 Manuscripts a beginning, however, imperfect? > Let us consider your point further: you argued that the 'labor > theory of value' and the FROP are required to develop the > 'Marxist' perspective on the revolutionary role of the working class. > If that were the case -- given the historical detail suggested above > -- then we would have to conclude by your standards that Marx > was not a Marxist _until_ he developed his critique of political > economy. Thus, you would arrive at a very curious result: you > would be asserting with the Althusserians that there is a 'Young > Marx' and an 'Old Marx'. This is a very unusual source of > agreement that you would have with a perspective that does not > share your view on the centrality of the law of value. Have you > become a 'reverse Althusserian'? What are your saying about Althusserians, here, Jerry. Where does Althusser oppose the 'law of value' (I'm glad you have switched from 'labor theory of value' which Rakesh uses, but is not in Marx). Paul Z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST