> >The empirical equivalence thesis is part of Q-D, no? Wasn't meaning >to suggest it was the whole shebang. I don't think so. It's verificationist. Q-D is not. jks > >As we've all been remiss in pointing out until now, the most >powerful critique of Capital -- in the last decade at the very >least -- makes no use whatsoever of value theory. What is missing >from that book............."Wall Street", that value theory would >make substantive improvements on? > well, we have it from very wise people that you can't begin to understand or explain capitalism without value theory, we're stucvk at the level of mere ecletic phenomenal static description. Sorry, Doug. jks _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
- RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Davies, Daniel
- Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Ian Murray
- Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Justin Schwartz
- RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Davies, Daniel
- Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Michael Perelman
- Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Justin Schwartz
- Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Rakesh Bhandari
- Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Justin Schwartz
- Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: HistoricalMateri... Rakesh Bhandari
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Justin Schwartz
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Ian Murray
- Historical Materialism Charles Brown
- Re: Historical Materialism Ian Murray
- Re: Historical Materialism Rakesh Bhandari
- Re: Re: Historical Materialism Doug Henwood
- Re: Re: Re: Historical Materialism Rakesh Bhandari
- Re: Re: Historical Materialism Michael Perelman
- Re: Historical Materialism Doug Henwood
- RE: Re: Historical Materialism Devine, James
- Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism Ian Murray