You've solved a mystery for me. I was given a volume called Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy, (Lexington: DC Heath, 1975) by one Lyn Marcus once. At the time I found it rather boring, but looking over it, it seems ok, as a restatement of Marx, reproduction schemes and so on.
There's a rather fantastical 'Genealogical diagram of Principal Currents of Modern Epistemology' in the frontispiece that makes the main trend from 'Renaissance Humanism' to the modern dialectical outlook pass down through Descartes, Liebniz, Kant, Riemann, Cantor, Klein and Einstein, while Spinoza, Hegel and Marx are off to one side.
The (suitably) paranoid dedication is 'To my opponents, who made this book necessary'.
Sounding spookily like me, Marcus writes
'The much-touted "ecology crisis" perversely vindicates Marx ... deeper examination of this problem compels an insistent investigator to confront the evidence of the more deadly sort of pollution represented by the ecology movement itself'
But Marcus is a back-slider on the proletarian defence of the automobile, I am sad to report:
'The enormous proportion of aerial and related pollution attributable to the gasoline and diesel engine demonstrates the pathology of the "people pollute" obsession'
He then goes on to anticipate the contemporary prejudice that car transport is a consequence of poor trains 'due to the decay of urban mass-transit systems ... it is often cheaper to move individuals by twos in private automobiles than by mass transit'.
But despite Marcus' concession to the anti-car lobby, he does go out on a limb for atomic energy: 'since ... the Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies began to recognise the possibility of a so-called "clean" Hydrogen bomb, we have been able to foresee the possibility of developing cheap thermonuclear fusion power.' From pages 187-8
Maybe Louis Proyect has a point.... -- Jim heartfield