Charles wrote:
> The real reason Carrol doesn't want you to read my posts is that I
> expose his posing as a Marxist while he writes so much anti-Marxism > - we don't need theory; or there is no historical content in the
> first chapters of _Capital_.
Charles, this is wrong for two reasons.
1) Carrol hasn't explicitly formulated any position on the "logical vs. historical" debate. He does seem to be in theoretical agreement with the "logical" camp, but that logical camp is very broad. It encompasses for example Paul Sweezy.
2) Nobody is arguing that there is no historical content in the first chapter of _Capital_. Either you've badly misunderstood what people have been saying, or you're deliberately misrepresenting a position.
What I and others have argued is that the commodity-form analysis is not a retracing of the steps of a historical process, but rather an exploration of the inner logic of the commodity form and money as a general equivalent.