[OPE-L:5001] Re: RE: Reply to Andrew on "Proof"

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue Feb 20 2001 - 13:08:35 EST

> Let me try to be more careful in distinguishing what I think is in
> Marx's text -- what his own work on expanded reproduction
> proves -- and what is others' doing.   In my view, by proving that
> Ic is not limited by the extent of the market, Marx's own work
> proves that Dept. I can grow more quickly than Dept. II.  Marx
> seems not to have written that his schema prove this, but I think
> they do so nonetheless;  the proof is there "in Marx himself."

I'm at a loss, Andrew.  Where does Marx "prove" that Ic (means of
production in Dept. I? -- please confirm the meaning of the symbol) is not
limited by the extent of the market (without referring to 'stretching out'
of the Illustration 1 in Marx)?  Note that I'm still not interested in
extended reproduction, only the issue of what constitutes "proof".

> So while I agree that political motivations are behind the whole
> debate, but that doesn't mean we can't apply objective and
> rational methods to assess arguments and evidence.  It seems to me
> that people's motives have nothing to do with whether their
> arguments, theories, etc. are true or false.

I have no such overriding confidence in intellectuals; how come I cannot
convince my colleagues to learn Marx?.  Nor do I think there is an
"absolute" truth that is knowable (Lenin comes to mind here).

Paul Z.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST