This makes _no_ statement whatever in respect to agitation and struggle. To read it as such is to read e=mc*2 as an assertion that lamb should be roasted at a temperature of 6347 degrees. Utterly pointtless. It is an analytic statement, expressed at a high level of abstraction. One can reject its correctness or one can explore possible relations to practice. But it makes no sense whatever to respond to it as though it were an agitational proposition. In particular, I was utterly baffled by Marv's response to Michael Yates's post. I am grateful to have Michael's MR article called to my attention. It is a superb article. But I wish Marv could explain to me how it bears in any way on the theoretical propositions I advanced in my initial post.
Over the years on this list, my attempts to initiate discussion of the scope _and_ the limits of theory have been mostly ignored or sidetracked. The silly and inappropriate responses on this thread manifest the refusal of so many leftists to give serious consideration to precisely what _theory _ is.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Marv Gandall Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:15 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Crisis or New Normal
On 2013-10-22, at 8:55 PM, michael yates wrote: [clip]