(OPE-L) Re: Dismal Science

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Jan 01 2004 - 11:53:08 EST

Next message: Paul Bullock: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: Paresh Chattopadhyay 'Capital, The Progenitor of Socialism'"
Previous message: Phil Dunn: "Dismal Science"
In reply to: Phil Dunn: "Dismal Science"
Next in thread: Phil Dunn: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: Dismal Science"
Reply: Phil Dunn: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: Dismal Science"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

[OPE-L] Dismal ScienceHi Phil. Happy new year!

Couldn't  Marx's  analysis of capitalism in _Capital_,
along with the critique of political economy therein,
[if examined in isolation] also be said to be "dismal 
science"?   To take an example from Volume I (since I 
know you prefer that to Volume III), even though the 
"general law of capitalist accumulation" represents an 
alternative to Malthusian  theory,  what -- if anything --  
tells us that it isn't  *also* "dismal science"?

In solidarity, Jerry

Next message: Paul Bullock: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: Paresh Chattopadhyay 'Capital, The Progenitor of Socialism'"
Previous message: Phil Dunn: "Dismal Science"
In reply to: Phil Dunn: "Dismal Science"
Next in thread: Phil Dunn: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: Dismal Science"
Reply: Phil Dunn: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: Dismal Science"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EST