Mike Beggs
> Whatever the flaws of mainstream economics, at least it's not
> pervaded by arguments from authority.
It would only be an argument from authority if Charles and I were disagreeing about some empirically existing economic phenomenon and then trying to resolve the dispute by reference to Marx quotations.
But that is not what we are doing.
Rather, Charles and I are having a disagreement about what Marx *wrote*. You can't resolve a dispute like that without reference to Marx. Referring to Marx in that context is not an argument from authority, because the issue is not the correctness or incorrectness of Marx's writings, but rather what he actually wrote.
> Julio's also right that if you think Capital is a finished, coherent
> conceptual system, you haven't read it.
Nobody here is claiming that Capital is a finished conceptual system. In fact, most value-form theorists say exactly the opposite. See the article I linked concerning Engels' editorship of Vol. 3.
> The 'labour theory of value' is a case in point - Marx's theory
> points the way out of the labour theory,
This is exactly what all value-form theorists say. Marx's value theory is not a Ricardian labour theory of value. I prefer the phrase "monetary theory of value" to describe Marx's innovation of the twofold nature of commodity producing labour.
Joanna:
> It is characteristic of a writer like Marx however that he appeals
> in different ways to radical as well as to dogmatic thinkers.
It is dogmatic to clarify what Marx wrote? You are basically claiming that it is not important to understand what a text means, since doing so would be dogmatism.