[OPE-L:6355] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation

From: nicola taylor (n.taylor@student.murdoch.edu.au)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 20:25:27 EST

Rakesh [6350]:
>re Nicky 6341

>Marx's theory was one of the magnitude and the form of value, that is 
>at the core of his own theory.

So we have a new definition of the core.  How does it solve the problem?
Differences about how magnitude relates to the form of value still depend
upon interpretation of the meaning of the form of value, in relation to
Marx's method.  

>If one proceeds only on the basis of 
>the latter (form of value), then one has a post Marxist theory. 

Name one of these 'post Marxist' writers... someone who proceeds *only* on
the basis of the form of value.  I've never come across any.

>may be a better theory than Marx's, it may be the logical development 
>of Marx's. But it is post Marx, not Marx's Marxism. 

To say that a theory is not Marx's Marxism, is basically to say that *your*
particular interpretation of how the qualitative and quantitative elements
in Marx are related is the only correct one.  No?


Nicola Taylor
Faculty of Economics
Murdoch University
South Street
W.A. 6150

Tel. 61 8 9385 1130 
email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au

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