^^^^^^^ CB: discontinous or not, it is more realistic. Less "religious" ; less as if Marx were a saint.
^^^^
>
>> Academics squirreling through a pile of unpublished notes
>
> See, this is the religious attitude I'm talking about. To you, unpublished manuscripts (i.e. those manuscripts known to us today as "Capital Vol. II and III") are perfectly authoritative as long as they're used to justify dubious notions like FROP (or whatever piece of orthodoxy one is defending), but as soon as a manuscript comes along that contradicts orthodoxy, then it's just mere "unpublished notes."
>
^^^^^^^^
CB: "Orthodoxy" ? Featuring the FROP is not the orthodoxy I subscribe to.
Seems to me that squirreling through notes that Marx didn't publish is basically ignoring Marx's judgement and conclusions as to what was worthwhile from his private thoughts, "brainstorms" so to speak.
^^^^^
> You can't have it both ways.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk