I am remembering this correctly, what is wrong with what I
> wrote previously?
>
> Andrew Austin
> Green Bay, WI
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 10:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Su
[By mistake, Michael P. sent the answer to Andrew's question to me rather
than to the list as a whole. ]
> >"Austin, Andrew" wrote:
> >
> > > Didn't Marx argue that labor-power was the measure of exchange-value?
> > >
> > > Andrew Austin
> > > Green Bay, WI
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Here i
Ignoring the typos, it seems to me that you claim both that Marx is not
interested in notions of entitlement and that insofar as Marxism has an
ethical basis it is that communism will give workers that to which they are
entitled. So even though Marx has no interest in entitlement the ethical
basis
rew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 10:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: Marx and Nature
No, he did not. Although he did not elaborate on the reasons until the
3rd volume.
"Austin
No, he did not. Although he did not elaborate on the reasons until the
3rd volume.
"Austin, Andrew" wrote:
> Didn't Marx argue that labor-power was the measure of exchange-value?
>
> Andrew Austin
> Green Bay, WI
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95
Max Sawicky wrote:
> What was remarkable -- and
> what Ollman himself remarked on in some of the responses to his
> presentation, was the reductivist view of class and class interests implicit
> in many of the questions directed to him. Carrol
>
> Interesting. Examples?
I have a terrible me
. . . Ollman provided the clearest exposition that I have ever
encountered --
clearer and more forceful than anything in Marx himself, Engels, Lenin,
or Luxemburg -- of the rationale for marxism's emphasis on class as the
primary analytic and political category. What was remarkable -- and
what Oll
I should have mention Foster's book. It is excellent. Yes, he does make his
case convincingly, but not quite the way that Nathan expressed it. It was not
so much Stalin purging that part of Marx, but a general ignorance of the
materialist tradition in which Marx was working. John goes into gre
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Nathan Newman wrote: [snip]
>
>
> How did Joel Kovel react, if at all?
Neither Ollman nor Kovel reacted to this part of Foster's argument. More
interesting, actually, was Foster's point of departure: his general emphasis
on Marx's debt to Epicurus. While listening, I foun
Nathan Newman wrote:
>At the Marxism conference, I went to the Marx and Ecology panel where John
>Bellamy Foster, Joel Kovel and Bertall Ollman discussed the issue. John
>Foster made the rather strong claim that Marx actually has a deep,
>well-detailed ecological component to his thought, but th
10 matches
Mail list logo
