IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Hi Chris. Thanks for your [6335]. A (really) brief question: >> * Also: is there *any* major part of Marx's theory that the >> development of subsequent thought shows needs to be >> modified or rejected? > marx completely failed to grasp the ecological problematic. All > the relevant stuff attributes the problem to capital - he does > not see the use value side is itself an issue. So all the stuff > in the Marx/green debate is relevant. The implications for 'a > society of abundance' and what presupposes that is obvious. Have you read [fellow OPE-Ler] Paul Brukett's _Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective_ [NY, St. Martin's Press, 1999; ISBN 0-312-21940-7]? In solidarity, Jerry
- [OPE-L:6541] Re: * poll: who has advanced political economy since M, Andrew Brown Fri 08 Feb 2002, 18:07 GMT
- [OPE-L:6540] Bohr-Heisenberg meeting, P . J . Wells Fri 08 Feb 2002, 17:31 GMT
- [OPE-L:6539] Re: * poll: who has advanced political economy since Marx? *, glevy Fri 08 Feb 2002, 15:40 GMT
- [OPE-L:6538] Marx and Engels and ecology, P . J . Wells Fri 08 Feb 2002, 15:17 GMT
- [OPE-L:6537] Re: * poll: who has advanced political economy since Marx?, glevy Fri 08 Feb 2002, 13:01 GMT
- [OPE-L:6535] Re: Re: * poll: who has advanced political economy since Marx?, Christopher Arthur Fri 08 Feb 2002, 12:27 GMT
- [OPE-L:6531] Learning beyond "static methods", Alejandro Ramos Thu 07 Feb 2002, 18:02 GMT
- [OPE-L:6533] Re: Learning beyond "static methods", Steve Keen Thu 07 Feb 2002, 19:46 GMT
- [OPE-L:6526] the commoner 3, gerald_a_levy Thu 07 Feb 2002, 13:53 GMT