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.
> The point that something > fundamental might have changed in Marx's mind after > reading Quesnay should be looked at seriously. Ajit: There is nothing that flows from a critique of Quesnay which contradicts the logic embodied in the 6-book-plan. Quite the contrary: the analysis of the reproduction process of social capital demands for its further development a theory which integrates that topic with the subjects of the three major classes (as subjects), the state, foreign trade (and hence, states) and the world market. Rather than leading to the abandonment of the 6-book-plan, that critique should point the way forward to those subjects. In solidarity, Jerry
- Re: [OPE-L] re the 6 book plan, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] re the 6 book plan, ajit sinha Mon 11 Sep 2006, 14:12 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] 'primitive' or 'original', etc., Rakesh Bhandari Mon 11 Sep 2006, 16:30 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] 'primitive' or 'original', etc., Howard Engelskirchen Tue 12 Sep 2006, 03:51 GMT
- [OPE-L] Adam's Fallacy A Guide to Economic Theology Duncan K. Foley, Rakesh Bhandari Tue 12 Sep 2006, 04:24 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] re the 6 book plan, Jerry Levy Tue 12 Sep 2006, 18:35 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] re the 6 book plan, ajit sinha Tue 12 Sep 2006, 23:10 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] re the 6 book plan, Rakesh Bhandari Wed 13 Sep 2006, 01:48 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] re the 6 book plan, Jerry Levy Wed 13 Sep 2006, 11:46 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] re the 6 book plan, ajit sinha Wed 13 Sep 2006, 13:41 GMT