<< Just a thought. OK , Marx is not being dialectical, or there is no valid method such as dialectics. It's just an excuse he uses to coverup his mistakes. He is just wrong, and Justin found him out.
You are so smart , Justin. Smarter than Marx even.
>>
No, I'm not smarter than Marx. But I don't have to be smarter than Marx to be able to conclude that he's wrong about something. After all, Charles, you are not smarter than, among others, Nozick, Hayek, Friedman, Mises, and a number of other brilliant anti-Marxist pro-capitalists, but that doesn't stop you from being able to formulate potentially valid objections to their work. Of, if you want someone in the same league as Marx, how about Hegel, eh?
However, Charles, since you are smart enough to see through Hayek and Hegel, you are certainly smart enough to explain to us just how Marx dialectically reconciles his class struggle theory of history with his productive forces account, while explaining, while you are at it, how the priductive forces account can possibly be right as an explanation of the rise of capitalism when there was no real significant technologiacl change in the emerging capitalist countries, mainly England, from 1450 to 1750, precisely the years that wage labor became the dominant form of economic relations. The big technological push doesn't come till the turn of the 19th century. Marx, of course, knows this. So get out your dialectical stuff and reconcile away.
--jks