[lbo-talk] Marxology question

[andie nachgeborenen]

I am not getting into this discussion again. You can check the archives for my opinions and arguments over the years. My experience is talking about the merits of value theory is fruitless and unilluminating. I will not do it any more. No progress is made, nothing is learned on either side. I will talk about the content of VT, within the framework of accepted assumptions for exegetical and historical purposes as long as this does not degeberate in discussion of the merits. That doesn't mean I a, able to refrain from occasionally stating my opininion about the pooint of the exercise.

--- On Sun, 8/10/08, negative potential <fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com> wrote:


> From: negative potential <fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Marxology question
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Sunday, August 10, 2008, 12:09 PM
> andie nachgeborenen:
> 
> > Personally I think value theory is hooey, but the 
> > problem you raise is not an real issue for the
> theory.
> 
> I don't recall raising any "problem".  Quite
> the
> opposite, once one understands that Marx is not
> Ricardo, there *is no problem*.
> 
> > What I am a skeptic about is the utility of value 
> > theory, I can talk it from the inside; I think it
> has 
> > historical and exegetical interest, but very limited
> if > any utility as a tool of economic analysis
> 
> There is no "Marxist economics" or "Marxist
> economic
> analysis".
> 
> There *is* a Marxian *critique* of political economy,
> a critique of the social form of labor in capitalist
> society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk