Jerry writes in 6343: >Why is it absurd? The focus that Roemer and Gil have on Marx seems >to me to be secondary -- the main focus is on comprehending capitalism >in a systematic manner. One might claim instead that it is *more* absurd >for a theory not to have a clear statement on contemporary developments >re crisis than on a Marx history of thought question. Thanks Jerry, but with respect to our discussions on OPE-L my focus has been even more modest, i.e. to understand the logical bases of Marx's most fundamental analytical claims based on value analysis. Gil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST