William.Cockshott at glasgow.ac.uk
Sun Feb 17 15:20:05 MST 2013
Angelus:"You apparently want to retain the terms that Marx uses, but you don't like the content that Marx assigns to those terms, so you fill the terms out with your own content. I think terms can have different meanings in different contexts, but then you should state this openly, rather than trying to pass off your concepts as Marx's."
Angelus I have attempted to respond to your points but so far you have completely ignored mine
. My point is that Marx is inconsistent. At points, and I quoted some of them he talks of prices being above or below value. This is only possible if value exists independent of price.
There are two possible interpretations of Marx on this because Marx says different things at different places, but only one of these is compatible with the scientific method. Heinrich when given something in Marx that is idealist and telelogical unhesitatingly plumps for it ( Anatomy of an Ape for example). But when there is in Marx a scientific theory, Heinrich rejects it.
My point is that if you reject the independent measurability of labour inputs then you reject any possibility of putting the labour theory of value to the test. It is impossible to prove that value rather than energy for example is the source of value.
How, Angelus other than sheer faith, do you decide to accept that it is labour rather than something else that lies behind exchange value?
That someone responsible for a great breakthrough may be at times inconsistent and retain old ideas is not surprising. If you go through Darwin's Descent of Man or his Espression of the Emotions, you will find passages that are 'Lamarkian'.
More information about the Marxism