Carrol wrote: > [When I posed the question I wanted not much more than a verbal definition, > not a full exposition of the term. I was browsing through some pen-l posts > using the term and was (mildly) curious.]
You are hard to please, man. :) > First of all, no "Marxist" has ever demonstrated that the problem of > conversion > can be solved, and the various suggested 'solutions" are so utterly > cumbersome, > so utterly foreign to the whole drive of Marx's thought, that I simply won't > have > anything to do with them. Value only exist as it is expressed in money, but > that > does _not_ mean that there is a intelligible linkage between the value of a > commodity and its "price." See Fredy Perhlman's Introduction to Rubin. There is also the very remote possibility that you are the one not getting it. > There cannot be any argument for socialism. There is no conceivable way by > which, operating from present knowledge, one can construct a future society > in the head, and to speak of defending such a pig in the poke is absurd. Uh? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
