Marxian vs. bourgeios categories [was Marx on Smith]

[Roger Odisio]

Let's see.  You say marxian analysis is not "technical", that when it uses
data it seems to you to be merely a scholastic exercise, that you're not
aware of anything it tells you that you can't find out without it, and that
I am kidding myself about the psuedo-profundity of my analysis.  OK.  While
each seems ludicrous to me, I'm sure you have reached these conclusions
after much thought and analysis. 

Well...maybe.  Anyone familiar with Marx will tell you that the concept of
productive labor is at the heart his anaylsis, as both Fabian and I have
done in this exchange.  To repeat the quote I included in a post a couple of
days ago:  the productive labor definition "expresses precisely the specific
form of the labour on which the whole capitalist mode of production and
capital itself is based". (Theories of Surplus value I, p. 396).  You had
said that not only weren't you sure about what it is, but you don't
understand what the point is of productive labor as a category.  So I tried
to explain it from the ground up. You now say you got nothing out of that.
Leaving aside any assessmant of the qualtity of my explanation, one thing is
clear:  you're still in the dark about this most fundamental point, to say
nothing about other important parts,  such as the uses of surplus value, as
you acknowledge.

So what do we make of the basis for your judgements about marxian analysis?

I've reached another conclusion.  This conversation hasn't been a complete
waste of time.  It has helped me understand what weight I should assign to
any statements you might make about Marx, from his analysis of the laws of
motion to whether the old fat guy had high blood pressure.