[OPE-L:6351] Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 15:51:58 EST

re John E's 6323

>My comment:   It seems to me that Darwin's theory is worked out enough that
>it can be stated and used in research.   One need not be a believer to do

in Darwin's case there has been tremendous debate as to what natural 
selection in fact is, but one is not a Darwinian if one does not 
accord it a central explanatory role in the evolutionary process, I 
don't think.

>This simply isn't true of Marx's effort.  That is, his stated purpose was
>to uncover the economic law of motion of modern society.  If he did this,
>what is that law?  Here, disagreements arise.

tendency towards centralization, enlargement of reserve army and 
surplus population, endogeneity of cycles. we may add a theory of 
immiseration and theory of widening and deepening crises, no?

>Why would Marxists insist that a Marxist must believe in something called
>the labor theory of value?

I think we should insist yet in debating what it is.

>   Why would Marxists claim that this belief is
>required in order to understand the law of motion when there is no agreement
>on what that law is?
John, I think this is too strong. There is some agreement, no?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST