charles, did you even bother to read my post. i'm not censoring. i'm asking both of you a serious question. and ange, aside from being an astute alice, has also turned into a mango. thanks woman! that was what i was hoping for coz this surplus value stuff spins my head sometimes. [yeah, exorcist was supposed to come to mind]
thanks for proving what a big huge dick you have, charles. hope it's not like john holmes's
cassabas, kelley
>
>
>>>> kelley <oudies at flash.net> 10/08/99 11:58AM >>>
>ooops...
>
>then spare me. and yourselves!
>
>(((((((((((
>
>Charles: I think you are trying to be a censor.
>
>((((((((((((
>
>
>but really, i can't believe it's just about who has a better marxist
>analysis. doesn't strike me as one of ange's usual obsessions. chaz, yes.
> ange no. speaking of obsessions, chaz you know you complain because
>others [ange and ted] condescend to you, well i'm afraid that i think you
>have a tendency to condescend to women. you don't seem to do it to me,
>though you once did. i suppose that this is because you 'n' i share some
>similarities with regard to philosophy of social science, so maybe you
>respect me or something. or mebbe you just like my slutty humor. dunno.
>don't care.
>
>((((((((((((
>
>Charles: Slutty ? I thought you were a nun (Mother Superior) obsessed with
controlling people's posts based on religious dogma and Catholic
ethnocentrism.
>
>I wouldn't say Angela condescends. She misrepresents.
>
>(((((((((((((
>
>
>but again,i'd really like to know why this matters. what difference does
>it make. serious quesiton and i'd like serious answer. oh and while i'm
>thinking of it: no duh! ange, theory doesn't dictate practice. but it
>must shape it, have an impact, affect it... somehowerother or you wouldn't
>be bumming over differences like this. so.
>
>(((((((((((((
>
>Charles: There is no requirement that e-mail posts matter a lot or make a
big difference. What seems to be forbidden is flaming.
>
>However, this particular exchange started with Angela calling for analysis
of the relationship between nation-states and surplus value. I commented
that I think that there is more of a link between Marx's analysis of
surplus-value and today's nation-states than she allowed, and it is in in
part Lenin's analysis of imperialism and other subsequent analyses. So, if
you think these issues are important, then these would be how these posts
matter.
>
>Then the posts got into whether I had discussed surplus value and labor
power in analyzing the war on Yugoslavia.
>
>CB
>
>
>