====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Yeah well, like a lot of people I don't have time to track down a lot of obscure stuff, like many folks I'm like the deer in the headlights (huh, what "Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust"? what . . . ?); but, hey, how about that link you posted to that comic book explication of the current situation; had more "use value" to me than dense tomes commenting on Capital, to say nothing of its entertainment and propaganda value as well, but surely someone needs to hack through the "small print" of it for sure, but that's not the sine quo non of politics, even if intellectuals are in love with it. So, maybe you can post that link again. The thing about Lenin is that his ideas, his self described popularizations, were easy to grasp, even for me as 16 year old high school student reading Imperialism, "dictatorship of finance capital", 40 years ago with its chart showing how Morgan, Rockefeller et al dominated the US economy. Thus a lot of this talk about "globalism" as something new is innacurate. On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 2:20 PM, S. Artesian <sartes...@earthlink.net> wrote: > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > Well, I take exception to that characterization of "Marxists," since > Marxists understand plenty about the actual predicament of capital, > particularly the issues of MBS, CDOs, CLOs, ABS, SIVs, Repo 105s, junk, > super-junk, unbelievable-junk, you're crazy if you think I'm going for that > junk etcetc. > > You haven't been reading the right Marxists. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Cod" <tomc...@gmail.com> > To: "David Schanoes" <sartes...@earthlink.net> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Marxism] What is the biggest flaw in the labor theory of > value > > > > ====================================================================== > > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > > ====================================================================== > > > > > > My lay person take on it is that the inherent value of a product > certainly > > lies in the labor it took to create it, its moral value so to speak, but > > to > > say that that and prices, which obviously reflect its exchange value > since > > that's what someone is willing to pay for it and which can fluctuate > > wildly > > are close or nearly close seems idealist. The "pet rock" of the 70s may > > have had little in terms of labor invested in it, collecting the items > and > > then packaging them, but the price that someone paid for it was a > function > > of market conditions, subjective and otherwise. This essentially goes > > towards the main issue which is Sales, a word I think I hardly ever see > > mentioned by Marx's ostensible epigones. Without consummated sales no > > value > > is realized, oranges dumped in groves while people starve as during the > > depression. Thus, my impression of "marxists" on economic theory is that > > they are very weak, seeking to talmudically parse and justify an old > > prophet > > and his sacred texts without much interest in empirically rooting > > themselves > > in current conditions. Thus we have little from them concretely > analyzing > > and demystifying the current burning economic issues related to > mortgages, > > CDOs etc etc., although their heart is in the right place. Then again > > politics is not primarily an academic exercise either. > > > > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Anthony Boynton > > <anthony.boyn...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> ====================================================================== > >> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > >> ====================================================================== > >> > >> > >> I have not followed this thread fully, but here are my three cents worth > >> in > >> answer to this question. > >> > >> I don't think there are any 'flaws' in Marx's value theory. However, it > >> has > >> never been fully developed. Historically the biggest glitch has been the > >> "transformation problem" which is still controversial. Other undeveloped > >> areas of value theory exist however. > > ________________________________________________ > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > > Set your options at: > > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net > > > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com > ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
