It's because of the male fetish of obstinacy :-) It's precisely why Justin, myself and others have been in the so what camp for years. The mere fact that the debate is interminable should count against those who want to cling to the carcass.
Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:00 PM Subject: [PEN-L:22552] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it? I could understand if you were using the theory to predict the ultimate implosion of capitalism, as the OCC approaches infinity and the ROP approaches zero. But people don't seem to do that any more. It seems to me that it's somehow a symbolic battle over "orthodoxy," with the rejecters using their rejection to advertise their rejection of orthodoxy, and the defenders using it as a badge of loyalty. Aside from advertising these affiliation, what's the point? Doug
