Rakesh [6350]: >re Nicky 6341 >Marx's theory was one of the magnitude and the form of value, that is >at the core of his own theory. So we have a new definition of the core. How does it solve the problem? Differences about how magnitude relates to the form of value still depend upon interpretation of the meaning of the form of value, in relation to Marx's method. >If one proceeds only on the basis of >the latter (form of value), then one has a post Marxist theory. Name one of these 'post Marxist' writers... someone who proceeds *only* on the basis of the form of value. I've never come across any. >It >may be a better theory than Marx's, it may be the logical development >of Marx's. But it is post Marx, not Marx's Marxism. To say that a theory is not Marx's Marxism, is basically to say that *your* particular interpretation of how the qualitative and quantitative elements in Marx are related is the only correct one. No? Nicky %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Nicola Taylor Faculty of Economics Murdoch University South Street Murdoch W.A. 6150 Australia Tel. 61 8 9385 1130 email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST