Re: Truth?

[Bill Burgess <burgess@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ricardo D. wrote
>
> My problem with this is that adding "sides" to an argument does not
> constitute by itself a dialectical approach. Marxist have the wrong
> habit of thinking that if they connects "x" to "y",  then they are
> dialectical. Moreover, how many sides does one incorporate before
> denconstructing the essential core of marxism?
>
One of the points I got out of Lebowitz's _Beyond Capital_ is the criteria
for evaluating the adequacy of a concept (I think this is related to "how
many sides..."). As I understand it, Marx, following Hegel, argued that
all suppositions should also be results (e.g. see in _Capital_ where he
explains in machinofacturer rather than manufacture is the characteristic
form of production under capitalism). I think this helps define the
(differing) relevence of various sides, which I take to be your concern
about the 'essential core of Marxism'.

Also, I wouldn't want to try to represent _Beyond Capital_, but I think
it's point is not *adding* sides to _Capital_ but begining to
elaborate sides that were always there but that Marx could not complete.

Bill Burgess