Hugh Rodwell wrote:
>Doug does not at all follow Marx every inch of the way, as he holds no
>truck with the labour theory of value.
Bullshit. I've never said any such thing. I've said I don't see the use of
efforts like Shaikh & Tonak's to translate bourgeois economic statistics
into Marxian categories. I'm willing to be convinced to the contrary, but I
still haven't heard a very persuasive defense of the effort. I've never
denied that the source of capitalist wealth is the exploitation of labor
(and nature) in production, despite all the phenomenal mystifications.
>He is just a skilled scavenger of
>some of the results of Marx's work. Something that Marx derived as a result
>of scientific analysis on the basis of fundamental theory (the labour
>theory of value) is treated by Headwood as an empirical snippet floating
>inexplicably on the surface of a great swamp. And even if Doug admits that
>' "money of the mind" collides with matter' in poor countries, there's
>still no scientific explanation given of this.
You have no idea what you're talking about. How can you so confidently
characterize a book you haven't even looked at much less read?
>This remark concerns the observation that ownership is all-important.
>What's so Marxian about that? All this remark shows is the huge gap between
>the vast majority of ideologizing vulgar economists and empirical reality.
>Except that most vulgar economists just take it for granted that ownership
>is all-important -- they just don't like admitting it openly.
Apparently your ignorance extends to vulgar economics too. Are you familiar
with the whole principal-agent literature?
>This is just nonsense and Rob knows it. Credit is tied at some remove to
>actual collateral assets.
What's the collateral asset behind credit card debt? Government debt?
>What's missing here is a statement to the effect that the essence of money
>is universal equivalence and convertibility *IN A COMMODITY* , ie a
>universal equivalent.
So this post-Bretton Wood world with no monetary role for gold - what is
it? An illusion? An aberration?
>And the
>longer they delay the big crash, the more dramatic it will be.
Promise?
>As for reading Capital, John's group has made the eternal discovery that
>getting the first few chapters of Capital to open up and deliver their
>treasures is not the simplest of tasks. Working in a group is a good start
>though, and finding the right guide is even more important. The right guide
>will most importantly understand and accept Marx's labour theory of value
>-- which disqualifies Doug (and Rob, if he ever chose to act as guide,
>which I don't think he would, actually, and all credit to him for that) and
>most of the so-called Marxists around today. Caveat lector. Hans certainly
>understands Marx's theory of value better than most, although perhaps he
>could remind me of his position as to its scientific validity.
Your arrogance is breathtaking; you make Lou Proyect look modest by
comparison. Tell me Hugh - what are your class origins? Middle class boy
who made good? Upper class boy who went bad? That is, is your arrogance
part of your class inheritance, or something you picked up on your own?
Doug
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
