Date sent: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:09:20 -0800
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:re: immanent critique
The following continuation of my discussion with Ricardo is becoming
extremely boring
At 14:10 4/12/97 -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
The basis for Marx's critique is expressed pretty clearly in the 1844
MANUSCRIPTS, which Marx never repudiated.
But Jim, Marx never needed to repudiate it because he never even tried to
publish it. After Marx's death, Kautsky was aware of
The following continuation of my discussion with Ricardo is becoming
extremely boring and repetitive -- not to mention long. Feel free to hit
"delete" at this point. It is my last contribution on pen-l -- unless people
really want it. If Ricardo wants to continue off-list, that's fine with me.
I
Date sent: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:10:06 -0800
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:immanent critique (was: dialectics)
Concerning Marx's work after the 1844 manuscripts, Ricardo writes: My
point
Date sent: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:34:24 -0800
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:immanent critique (was: dialectics)
Ricardo writes:
... I would argue there is a difference between the early
