Louis N Proyect
lnp3 at columbia.edu
Fri Oct 27 12:30:48 MDT 1995
On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, James Miller wrote:
> I don't think my post was ignored simply because
> nearly everybody agreed with it and had nothing
> to add. I think most subscribers to this list don't
> recognize why such discussions are important. And
> no doubt there are many who feel there must be
> something wrong with what I said, but lack the
> necessary interest in the topic to argue about it.
How utterly presumptuous of you, James. This list, like the PEN-L list,
has chewed over the LTV bone until there's no meat left. Steve Keene had
a pitched battle with at least a dozen people a year ago over the LTV and
the discussion is in the archives.
The reason people are reluctant to get into it now is because we are
basically in agreement with Marx's basic ideas and are trying to *apply*
them. You will not find very many people on this list who disagree with
the LTV. If if this is your goal, I suggest you subscribe to the PEN-L
where you will find at least 50 people who would love to take another
ride on the LTV or FROP merry-go-round.
I read Capital back in 1967 for the first time and the labor theory of
value seemed totally correct to me the first time it was explained.
Arguments against it don't emerge from people who have regular 9-5 jobs.
They come from figures in academia. This is not to say that there is
anything wrong with academia. It is just that when you've been working in
a steel mill for decades, as comrade Scott Marshall of this list has,
there's no reason to doubt it.
Thank you for your time. I did appreciate the mention of "Invisible
Leviathan". This is a interesting title that I look forward to perusing.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism