> > On other points, R does imprive on Marx. > >jks >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >CB: Like what other points ? The presumption is against you, and the burden >of proof on you.
Says who? But in short, the main two things where I think R improves on Marx is to to insist (a) that a coherent and defensible notion of exploitation has to be defined in terms of a superior alternative; Marx was wrong not to want to write recipes for the cookshops of the future and (b) that the labor theory of value, in the form Marx uses it, is indefensible and should be scrapped; the notion of exploitation should be reconstructed without it. I don't agree with hwo Roemer does that. My own version of the reconstruction (which I attribute, insofaras the text will allow, to Marx himself) is in my paper What's Wrong with Exploitation, which you have. As far as that goes, I have morethan discharged any burden of proof I may have. jks > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
