[Marxism] (no subject)

[Steve Palmer]

MET is an attempt to 'prove' Marx historically, rather than a critique of
political economy, and I think this is what Mandel later recognized. I don't
recall where I read this.

For myself, in addition to this, it suffers the problems of all such attempts
to 'prove' Marx or any other science by confrontation with 'empirical reality'.
You have to go further and demonstrate that you can explain the contradictions
of competing theories, why they apparently explain reality and why they exist
at all.

Mattick's critique makes all the key points very specifically:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1969/mandel.htm. (I don't share
Mattick's view of the Soviet Union, though he does point out the flaws in
Mandel's interpretation of Trotsky).

I should have qualified what I said: it's a terrible place to start trying to
understand Marx.

Steve


--- Joonas Laine <jjonas at nic.fi> wrote:

> Steve Palmer:
> > Mandel repudiated MET, if I remember correctly.
> > Personally I think its terrible.
> 
> Why did Mandel repudiate it, and why do you think its terrible?
> 
> -- 
> jjonas @ nic.fi
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
> 


"I study a lot. That is one of the responsibilities of every revolutionary." Hugo Chavez.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ