[lbo-talk] Re:What Is Value, Anyway?

[Autoplectic]

On Apr 11, 2005 1:38 AM, John Bizwas <bizwas at lycos.com> wrote:
> 
> Ian writes in response to a selected quote from what I wrote about value:
> >
> > Yes, the rhetorical equivalent of hand-waving is the perfect method
> > for rebutting arguments against one hypthesis in KM's mature pe
> > analysis. Change the subject and everything is fine. Drag in Hegel and
> > you've done what the Church used to do with those who questioned
> > Thomas Aquinas' wisdom
> 
> Hardly fair at all--indeed, it seems to be you who is waving your hand and changing topics (quite a few there). You actually prove my point--witness your pointless exchanges with CC. The philosophical assumptions are so different you simply can't communicate with a Marxist. Hegel belongs here because Marx read and studied him, have you? Now about the question about 'value', might as well ask what we mean by 'mean' as well while we are at it. My point was that the concept is firmly established in pre-Marxist discourse, if you bother to read it. Marx then goes on to make systematic use of it, because he was systematic, unlike most of the non-Marxist economists I know of. Unlike just about ANY economists I know of.

----------------------------------

Why don't you go back and read the April 7 thread "DeLong gives the
smackdown to 'Ol Whiskers" in order to see how Carrol changed the
subject completely so that we now have immense drift away from what
was the issue at the time, *one* hypothesis within KM's mature pe.

I'm done with this; you feel free to keep babbling.

Ian