James Devine wrote:
>So to my mind, Doug may be like Moliere's bourgeois gentleman (without being
>bourgeois himself, of course): he's been speaking Marxian value-theoretic
>prose all his non-lit-crit life without knowing it. Being Marx-informed and
>Marx-friendly, his "superficial" or "empiricist" analyses in WALL STREET
>takes for granted Marx's vol. I macro-analysis.
This stuff is all in my head; I'm not doing it unconsciously. I just don't
see the need to trot out the standard vocab, and make the ritual
obeisances, when I'm not writing for that sort of audience.
Now it's off to the West for a week. I'm not unsub'ing in case you all
solve the value controversy in my absence.
Doug
