quot; rather than a "political economist."
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:31 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5312] Re: Re: Re: Norm's reading list
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wro
Norm,
Before you go into further debt slavery with all those texts, try The New
Palgrave [a great series btw] titled "Marxian Economics". It's a
dictionary/encyclopedia that's in one slim volume that's VERY readable.
Also, there's a larger "Dictionary of Marxist Thought" by Tom Bottomore
which
] Norm's reading list
Norm,
Before you go into further debt slavery with all those texts, try The New
Palgrave [a great series btw] titled "Marxian Economics". It's a
dictionary/encyclopedia that's in one slim volume that's VERY readable.
Also, there's a larger "Dictionary of Marxist
Lisa Ian Murray wrote:
Norm,
Before you go into further debt slavery with all those texts, try The New
Palgrave [a great series btw] titled "Marxian Economics".
Almost all the texts mentioned imply that Marx was an economist and that
Marxism is an economic theory. But this destroys
ok, carrol, then please do me the special favor of posting your favorite
books to my wish list that interpret the Marx the way you prefer. further,
if you like, please comment on those books presently on the list that
grossly misinterpret what Marx said or wanted to say.
as i said, i'd like
Carrol,
How about "political economist"?
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, December 01, 2000 3:18 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5280] Re: Norm's reading list
Lisa Ian Murray wrote:
Norm,
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
Carrol,
How about "political economist"?
Certainly much better than "economist," though by "critique of
political economy" Marx meant, I believe, to show from inside
political economy that it was necessarily incoherent, and that
that incoherence flowed
Here's Norm's reading list. I don't thing anyone should read all of these
books at once. I think that it's best to start with the pro-socialist
perspective, since most of what we get in economics courses, the news, etc.
is Hayekian, Friedmanite, etc.
It depends on what you're looking
