Phil,
All of these quotes are clearly tangential to my point: Marx did not
consider nature to have value in his economics, out of that all of the rest
of my argument follows if you accept the premise of the determinance of
production in social formations. All of your tangential quotes show
absolutely nothing in relation to my fundamental point (and they really are
tangential--I pointed out that they did recognize the obvious). The bottom
line is: you sure produce a lot of smoke, but very little light. But I
guess you must sense that yourself since you seem to feel compelled to be
insulting at the same time which only communicates a very strong feeling of
insecurity to me..
I'm interested in Bill's contribution and, contrary to what Bill just
posted,I was able to get into the archive and find the thread, the intro to
the book, as well as some other appended critiques -- apparently not
everyone buys into Foster's argument and I'll have to look into the entire
question of Marx's studies of soils, of which I was totally unaware but
which seem to be at the heart of Foster's argument concerning Marx's
ecology. Maybe you've read them, Phil? . In any event, Bill's contribution
was helpful. On the other hand, I don't know why you continue to spend
your time copying passages out of Marx and Engels and posting them to the
list--I don't find them relevant to the points I've been making (let alone
being refutations) and they certainnly must take you a lot of time--not to
mention the possible cardiac damage you might be causing yourself--
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:02 PDT