Louis P. wrote: > John Weeks, hmmm. I have a bone to pick with this guy anyhow. [snip] > Boy, was I burnt. If the guy only had the honesty to tell me up-front what his views were. All he wanted was a forum for his bullshit. John Weeks is an intelligent and intellectually honest Marxist even if I do not always agree with his analysis. I'm quite sure that he wanted something more than "a forum for his bullshit." Jim Miller wrote: > > The attempt to pit Marx against Engels, to > > show Engels as an opponent of Marx, and to refute > > Engels while purportedly defending Marx, is one > > way of indirectly attacking Marxism as a whole. > > This is the method employed by John Weeks in > > the first two chapters of his 1981 book, _Capital > > and Exploitation_. The above suggests that John Weeks was "indirectly attacking Marxism as a whole" and that, it is suggested, is the "method" employed by Weeks. If the above is a sample of the reasoning behind your critique of Weeks, I think I'll take a pass. Weeks attempted to understand Marx and further our understanding of political economy and capitalism. Why can't a critique of his work begin with an honest attempt to understand his purpose and method? Jerry
