I thank Ken Hanley for his thoughtful and interesting post. I
think we are getting somewhere.
Ken: "I see that I have indeed misunderstood your remarks.
However, you still seem to commit a petitio since in reply you
insist that what you identify as a fallacy is such when that is
part of the is
ve matter. In Ken's analogy, however, the existence
> of an interpretation of objective events according to which X is
> not necessarily wrong about the substantive matter supposedly
> disproves Ken's claim that X is wrong. Still another bait and
> switch.
COMMENT:
You are
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof
regarding
surplus value and profit
Let's suppose that X claims th
shown that his
> interpretation of my comment is correct.
>
> It isn't. In fact, it is ludicrous.
>
>
> Andrew Kliman
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM
t his
interpretation of my comment is correct.
It isn't. In fact, it is ludicrous.
Andrew Kliman
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re:
Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough in the
power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them when they
go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of believers in
Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of Shazam
c
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 March 2002 01:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23950] Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and
profit
>. So, let's call a halt to
>this.
sorry; ifI could withdraw my prev
I agree with Carrol about the absurdity about expecting that all
challenges must be answered, but I hope that the whole thread has stopped.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:18:44PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>
> Drewk wrote:
> >
> > Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug:
> >
> > I am still waiting for my qu
Drewk wrote:
>
> Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug:
>
> I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered.
> If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot.
>
That is not how maillists work or ought to work. I've added people to my
kill file who got too insistent that
Please, if anyone wants to carry on with this discussion, let's do it off
list.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:10:13PM -0500, Drewk wrote:
> Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug:
>
> I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered.
> If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you can
ot;proofs" in the face of
> disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly
> an ideological attack. Again, none of this has anything to do
> with "disagreement."
>
> Am I right or not? If not, why not?
>
> Andrew Kliman
>
> -Original Mes
Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug:
I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered.
If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot.
Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx.
Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx..
Andrew Kliman
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh
Bhandari
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23942] Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I
shall repost the following questions (of cours
Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I
shall repost the following questions (of course if John E or Manuel
or Gary or Mat has answers, I would appreciate it):
And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption
of classical natural or equilibrium pric
I appreciated Mat Forstater's post. I agree with most of what he
says
"Drewk, you seem to think that "proof" is something everyone
agrees on."
No, I actually don't, since, as you say:
"My experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually
based on methodological issues, philosophical
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh
Bhandari
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23918] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Andrew writes:
>"A" physical surplus and "the" ph
iman
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding
surplus
value and profit
Drewk wrote:
>The silence about this
I've been suppressed this way for years, so I can identify.
--mbs
> What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
> listen to the silence.
> Andrew Kliman
me. I'll be there. Mat
-Original Message-
From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23914] RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value
and profit
I agree that "Not all disagreement is malicious
Andrew writes:
>"A" physical surplus and "the" physical surplus mean exactly the
>same thing in this context.
ok
>
>I do not deny, but affirm "that with rising productivity there is
>indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass
>of
>surplus value [corresponds to] a greater
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh
Bhandari
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23911] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding
surplus
value and profit
>I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the
>real world.
ok
Perelman
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23908] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that
does not
mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example,
Justin knows
t
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin
Schwartz
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
>
>This is precisely right. This is why it i
3] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding
surplus
value and profit
Drewk wrote:
>The silence about this issue is deafening.
>
>What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
>listen to the silence.
Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred
Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that does not
mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example, Justin knows
that I strongly disagree with his reading of Marx, but I do not dream that
he is trying to suppress Marx.
Your accusation could never be proven, but
>
>This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx --
>his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what
>people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous
>to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint.
>
>
>Andrew Kliman
>
That
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
"Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor
theory
of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex
capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it
shouldn't
even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems.
This
is
I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the
real world.
The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical
things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some,
deficits of others. There cannot be any "the" physical surplus.
The fake attempts to show that sur
>Michael writes:
>
>>One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value.
>>Marx did offer one simple "proof" of the role of surplus value in the
>>creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a
>>whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore tha
Charles, you write
>
>CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you
>reiterate it ? Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a
>necessary condition for profit ? Marx makes surplus value part of the
>definition of profit.
>
First things first: w
half Of Gil Skillman
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23879] Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value
and
profit
Michael writes:
>One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus
value.
>Marx did offer one simple "proof"
Michael writes:
>One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value.
>Marx did offer one simple "proof" of the role of surplus value in the
>creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a
>whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it c
32 matches
Mail list logo
