Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century

paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk

Dave,

I think that if you believe that Marx 'had limited knowledge of certain 
things, such as the theory of money or production prices', then you don't 
have the same understanding of the dialectical method in Marx as me. Marx 
demonstrated through a dialectical method, why money came into existence and 
what it represented. Then he demonstrated why a concept of price at one 
stage in the development of commodity production had to give weay to another 
concept ie 'simple price' to 'price of production'. Here I use the term 
concept as an idea that actually properly grasps a real process.

(Incidentally since Marx died when my own grandfather was already 16, I feel 
you should play down the 'too many years ago' bit as if it were an argument 
;-)

Paul Bullock

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Zachariah" <davez@kth.se>
To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century

> dogangoecmen@aol.com wrote:
>> you seem to oppose to everything that is linked to Marx, his predecessors 
>> and followers.
>
> I think this is a real problem among certain Marxists. You are reading a 
> dead German philosopher from the 19th century as if he were a prophet. 
> Marxists ought to read Marx as Darwinists read Darwin. At least if they 
> which to be scientific. If I think Marx was wrong or had limited knowledge 
> of certain things, such as the theory of money or production prices, does 
> that suggest that I oppose him, his predecessors and followers on 
> everything?
>
> See my post: 
> http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/0802/0013.html
>
>> We have started this debate because you said dialectics is 
>> pseudo-scientific.
>
> If you look at the record this is not true. What I said was that 
> dialectics was either pre-scientific or pseudo-scientific, depending of 
> course on how it is used.
>
>> That is to say that its laws exist in natural, social and epistemological 
>> relations independently from our wills wishes and so on. So you can use 
>> them consciously or deny them. In the first case you will have conscious 
>> work and life. In the second case the laws of dialectics will bring 
>> themselves against your will, that is, behind your back. it is up to you 
>> which way you prefer. But it is good to see that your big claim 
>> disappeared.
>
> Dogan, this paragraph verges on pseudo-science. Now you are giving 
> dialectics the role of causal laws as is used in scientific theories. But 
> nothing of what you said here has any testable content.
>
> Compare this with the case if someone told you there is something called 
> "force" that acts regardless of your will, according to three laws. It is 
> only if these laws had testable consequences verified by observations that 
> we would find them useful. Otherwise they are discarded according to the 
> principles of the scientific method.
>
> //Dave Z
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
> 

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope