On 2/23/07, Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
CB; Interesting idea, but isn't the class struggle in the "materialism" part, not the "historical" part ? The "historical" part already includes or _is_ sort of "storical". If you use "materialism" , you are positing class struggle as a foundation of historical explanation. Maybe "Hypothetical materialism".
Charles, aren't you making an assertion in the form of a question that solicits me to present evidence to the contrary rather than you presenting evidence for your assertion? ;-)
That's glory for you!
-- Sandwichman
- Re: Krugman - was "yay! for us fruits & nuts in the Golden State.", (continued)
- Re: Krugman - was "yay! for us fruits & nuts in the Golden State.", Eugene Coyle Fri 23 Feb 2007, 20:23 GMT
- Storical materialism, Charles Brown Fri 23 Feb 2007, 16:21 GMT
- Re: Storical materialism, Mark Lause Fri 23 Feb 2007, 16:36 GMT
- Re: Storical materialism, Doyle Saylor Fri 23 Feb 2007, 17:05 GMT
- Re: Storical materialism, Sandwichman Fri 23 Feb 2007, 19:30 GMT
- bombs in Iran soon? -- UN, Jim Devine Fri 23 Feb 2007, 16:11 GMT
- Re: bombs in Iran soon? -- UN, Yoshie Furuhashi Fri 23 Feb 2007, 18:18 GMT
- Bombs in America Now, Leigh Meyers Fri 23 Feb 2007, 18:40 GMT
- Re: Bombs in America Now, Yoshie Furuhashi Fri 23 Feb 2007, 19:17 GMT