Andrew writes:
> (1) Gil provides a couple of quotes from Marx that Gil says are the kind of
> falsification of my interpretation that I require. The problem is that
> the terms of the quotes differ from those that I require. This was my
> whole point--I don't think this kind of procedure will resolve much.
But Andrew, aren't those quotes pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that you
would *necessarily* have to throw out to defend your approach as
representative of Marx's account?
Gil