c b: "It is like using part of Darwin's/Mendel's thesis, but leaving out important parts, and still claiming to be advocating Darwinism."
But that's exactly what biologists do. It's because science has advanced. Almost no one mentions "The Ascent of Man" anymore, except for historical reasons; it's a bit of an embarrassment. But no one treats generally ignoring it as a *refutation* of Darwin--except, maybe, creationists.
^^^^^^^ CB: They do "mention" _The Origin of Species_ and Mendel's theory, though. The fundamental principles of those theses are adhered to by biologists/ natural historians like Stephen Jay Gould. See _After Darwin_. Biological anthropologists adhere to the fundamental principles of _The Origin of Species_ in explaining the origin of the human species.
Bourgeois political economy has not advanced past _Capital_, of course, because capitalism has not changed fundamentally. The greater concentration/centralization/monopolization of wealth that Marx predicted in the penultimate chapter of _Capital_ ( One capitalist kills many) has created a phenomenon elucidated by Lenin in _Imperialism_, but the "cell" of capitalist political economy remains the same ( See preface to _Capital_ on the "cell").
If Joan Robinson disdain's the labor theory of value/value theory of labor/law of value, she disdains Marx's theory of exploitation in capitalism. Marx without exploitation is not Marx.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:53 AM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sigh. This is what comes of treating Marxism as a religion rather than
> a grapple with reality -- suppressing everything Marx stood for in the
....