[lbo-talk] The zen of marx (was clarification)

[Lakshmi Rhone]

On 2/16/10, Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Lakshmi Rhone <lakshmirhone at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>  >
>  > But I am interested in the psychological type that claims the spirt of
>  > Marx but spits
>  > out appeals to authority (LISTEN TO DAVID HARVEY FOR THIRTY HOURS
>  > NOW), does not understand what Marx says (treating rent as something
>  > added on to price, which is the basic error that Marx's analysis was
>  > meant to expose), and provides one muddled idea after another.
>  > This kind of Marxism requires psychological analysis, don't you think?
>  > LR
>  >
>
>
> That's not an appeal to authority. What was said was "Marx's theory of value
>  is very complex, and here's a better explanation than I could provide, if
>  you have the time for it, by a one David Harvey," not "according to Doctor
>  of Marxology David Harvey, Marx's theory of value is x, so Marx's theory of
>  value is x." If you have time to LISTEN TO DAVID HARVEY FOR THIRTY HOURS,
>  you'll find that it isn't just thirty hours of "as Doctor of Marxology, I
>  certify that the following things are true..." - he very carefully develops
>  an argument, which is why it takes thirty hours.

That's why Marx declined the offer to a short public  debate with
Comrade Weston and told everyone that they had to read all four
volumes of Capital or watch 30 hours of YouTube before they even began
a dialogue about value (or VALUE).


>
>  Carrol's said much I disagree with and much I just can't comprehend, but
>  he's also said, again and again, that speculating about one's opponents'
>  psychological motivations makes constructive debate impossible. He's right.

I thought that is what Julio Huato said in the debate about Obama.

LR

 ___________________________________
>  http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>