Duncan wrote [OPE-L: 406]:
> No method guarantees scientifically interesting results.
Please explain.
> Marx ... tried a number of different strategies. I think the one he
>settled on in the first volume of Capital was aimed at emphasizing the
>continuity between his thought and Smith and Ricardo's. It might have
>been more Marxist for him to start with historical materialism.
It is too easy to misinterpret the meaning of short e-mail messages, so
I'm going to have to ask Duncan to explain more about the above.
1) Marx intended Capital to be a "Critique of Political Economy." This,
by itself, suggests that he viewed his theory as a radical departure,
rather than a "continuity", from classical political economy. You would
agree, correct?
2) The method of Smith and Ricardo was *radically* different than Marx's
method of investigation, correct? In particular, wouldn't you agree that
Marx's systematic dialectical method re the ordering and
inter-relationship of categories (influenced by Hegel) is a very
different method of enquiry from either classical political economy or
contemporary (e.g. marginalist, surplus approach, Post-Keynesian, etc.)
economic thought?
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry