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 Dogan: You cited Luxemburg in her paper "Back to Adam Smith" [Zuruck auf Adam Smith] as claiming that *impartiality* is fundamental to the scientific method and that the 'methodological principle' of impartiality is related to the 'ethical principle of honesty' (bottom of page 3). Did she claim, though, that the theory advanced by Marx, Engels, and Marxists -- including herself -- was based on this 'methodological principle' of impartiality? Isn't there necessarily a (for lack of a better term) tension between a theory which claims to be impartial and at the same time is said to represent a particular revolutionary and class perspective? Isn't a 'partisan impartial scientist' an oxymoron? In solidarity, Jerry
- Re: [OPE-L] The hidden significance of second-hand goods in the world economy, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] The hidden significance of second-hand goods in the world economy, Michael Perelman Sat 31 Mar 2007, 19:16 GMT
- [OPE-L] Reflections of President Fidel Castro, March 29, 2007, glevy Fri 30 Mar 2007, 12:38 GMT
- [OPE-L] Fifth Marx International Congress, glevy Fri 30 Mar 2007, 11:51 GMT
- [OPE-L] Marx and Philosophy Society Annual Conference, glevy Fri 30 Mar 2007, 00:30 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] rosa luxemburg, glevy Thu 29 Mar 2007, 19:28 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] rosa luxemburg, Dogan Goecmen Thu 29 Mar 2007, 19:58 GMT
- [OPE-L] Mandel's dialectics, Jurriaan Bendien Thu 29 Mar 2007, 05:34 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Mandel's dialectics, glevy Thu 29 Mar 2007, 20:16 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [OPE-L] Mandel's dialectics, Jurriaan Bendien Fri 30 Mar 2007, 15:34 GMT