Marx was wrong not to >want to write recipes for the cookshops of the future and > >^^^^^^^ > >CB: I take it you mean that a "coherent and defensible notion of >exploitation" AS SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG WITH CAPITALISM must be opposed by >Marx with a superior socialist alternative. So, you this is a sort of >philosophical version of Thatcherite TINA.
No, it;s the obverse of TINA. TINA is ana rgument for capitalism. To refute it, you have to show TIAA. Seems something of an overstatement to say that Marx didn't give us very important elements of communism: no state, no war, no poverty. That's an enormously superior alternative to capitalism as it has actually existed. > > No, anyone can list a pie in the sky story about hwo wonderful things will be if only. What is need to show TIAA is to specidy the institiuonal structure in outlinew ithout enough detail to answer plausible objections. If it won't work in theory,w hy think it will work in practice? > > > (b) that the labor >theory of value, in the form Marx uses it, is indefensible > > >^^^^^^^^^ >CB: Indefensible from what ? Everytime you raise some "attack" , it has >been very readily refuted. The whole discussion of doubly "free" labor, >labor as a commodity, labor as the source of all new value stands up in >the face of what you say. You haven't raised any successful arguments >against Marx's law of value, and whole theory of value. > I don't awntto get into this. Obviously I don;t agree, and you won't agree, so let's leave it, eh? I see no point in spinning our wheels on this one. > When I started that with your paper in front of me, you ended the thread. What's up on that ? I mean you can summarily assert said validity, but it is a fake move not to discuss the specifics of your paper. Now a few of the concepts have come out here and there over many discussions, so some of what you have said has been responded to here. I have not yet seen a point where Marx did not seem to have the better of the disagreement with you. I will address the specifics of your paper, but it is shell game to refuse to discuss it. Pose me a specific question, and if I ahve the energy and inclination, i will try to answer it. I alsoo lookeda t those exchanges, and I don't read them as evasive or refusing to answer any concrete question. I'm not going to do another round on the LTV, though, I've said my say, I haven't a lot to add to what I've said, I'm not real interested in the point. I've heard y'all's say, we're each not convinced. That's life, let's move on. Note that in WWWE the LTV is only indirectly a target of my atatck: I didn't, except in a footnote, argue aaht it was wrong, just that Marx could get along without it. That a a version of the redundancy theory. jks _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
