re John E's 6323 >My comment: It seems to me that Darwin's theory is worked out enough that >it can be stated and used in research. One need not be a believer to do >so. in Darwin's case there has been tremendous debate as to what natural selection in fact is, but one is not a Darwinian if one does not accord it a central explanatory role in the evolutionary process, I don't think. >This simply isn't true of Marx's effort. That is, his stated purpose was >to uncover the economic law of motion of modern society. If he did this, >what is that law? Here, disagreements arise. tendency towards centralization, enlargement of reserve army and surplus population, endogeneity of cycles. we may add a theory of immiseration and theory of widening and deepening crises, no? > > >Why would Marxists insist that a Marxist must believe in something called >the labor theory of value? I think we should insist yet in debating what it is. > Why would Marxists claim that this belief is >required in order to understand the law of motion when there is no agreement >on what that law is? > John, I think this is too strong. There is some agreement, no? rb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST