Michael Greinecker post. But something must have gone wrong between the seat of my chair and my keyboard.
I was not inclined to argue about the first sentence, "I will not go into arguing what 'real' Marxism is or how well it is founded in the writings of Marx." Then I clicked on the links and saw they were all Analytical Marxists.
Anyways, why is the word "implicit" in the phrase "Concerning the implicit value judgements in Marxism"? Is it so that one can assert exploitation is a normative concept, despite explicit statements by Marxists and scholars of Marx otherwise? I don't disagree that an argument can be developed here.
I would think Marxist political parties around the world have by now developed views on ecology; on discrimination based on ethnic, gender, gender preferences, etc.; and on access issues. I assume the objection is whether such concerns can be coherently integrated into the theory Marxists use.
By the way, my reaction to Mankiw's comment on the core was also to think of John Roemer.
(You might want to fix the spelling of the post title.)
I tried to leave this as a comment on a
0 comments:
Post a Comment