t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 10:08 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:14636] Re: False Holism
> Hi, Max! My note on False Holism somehow hasn't come back to my
> in-box from PEN-l, but since you replied to it, I guess it got
> posted.
>
>... _Monopoly Capital_, etc. need to be revised.
>
>Yoshie
All books need to be revised, but none should be except by their authors.
We can learn from their mistakes to create better books.
my 1983 article in the REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS provides some
constructive criticism of
>the following makes Sweezy sound as if he's dead. Last time I heard,
>he wasn't.
>
>At 01:08 PM 07/03/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>>* Sweezy was also a proponent of an "underconsumption"
>>interpretation of Marx, a new theory of imperialism rooted in
>>"dependency" and the examination of Keyn
the following makes Sweezy sound as if he's dead. Last time I heard, he wasn't.
At 01:08 PM 07/03/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>* Sweezy was also a proponent of an "underconsumption"
>interpretation of Marx, a new theory of imperialism rooted in "dependency"
>and the examination of Keynesian de
Hi, Max! My note on False Holism somehow hasn't come back to my
in-box from PEN-l, but since you replied to it, I guess it got
posted. I must be having some problem with my computer or server.
>You and MR are talking about financial capital,
>and most of what you say is well-taken, but I
>und
You and MR are talking about financial capital,
and most of what you say is well-taken, but I
understood Mark to be referring to real capital
goods and facilities. From a reasonable assessment
of the world population's needs (including leisure
time), we could use more capital, not less. Mark's
s
