Please do tell. I have not in fact kept up with the present literature. I'm generally aware of the outlines of the older new defenses by the likes of Devine, Kliman, Levy, and Cleaver, but it has indeed been many years since I struggled with the literature on value theory. The last time I was seriously working on it I can canned for doing so and and to go to law school, learn new bodies of material, earn a living in a new way, that sort of thing. This explains although of course it does not justify or excuse my ignorance. I am not being sacastic or ironical, that is just the way things are.
Therefore, if you could point me to a reasonably concise survey of the newest literature, I will look at it. Skeptically. I have yet to see anything of this sort since the early 20th century that didn't look like adding epicycles to a hopeless and pointless theory. But my mind is not closed, so please say what I should read that would improve my understanding.
Btw, I have not gone through "this" -- that is, my usual is an explanation of why I think value theory is silly today. In the present instance I did not do that. Accepting arguendo the premises of value theory as I understand Marx to advocate it, I argue that a certain point within value theory that Doug seemed to be advocating, and which I am now even more sure he is advocating, is an incorrect application of value theory at its most defensible.
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2006, at 9:05 PM, tfast wrote:
>
> > Don't bother Justin goes through this every 18
> months with no
> > regard to present literature
>
> So what do you like in the present literature?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index