On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > raghu wrote: > > Why is "Law of Value" a more accurate phrase? Is it a physical law > > comparable to the Law of Gravitation or the Law of Evolution? > > Better Marx scholars than I (e.g., Paul Zarembka) point out Marx used > this term, except when he referred to others' work (e.g., that of > Ricardo).
It is perfectly understandable that Marx would want to claim for his own ideas the intellectual prestige associated with scientific laws of nature. The real question is whether his claim has merit. > I see this "law" as more like the "law of demand and supply" than the > law of gravitation. Me too. Just like the "law of demand and supply", the "law of value" does not, in my opinion, merit a term that is commonly associated with physical laws of nature. > I don't get the point of capitalizing "Law.") I capitalized it for emphasis. > > All of this Marx exegesis and critiques and defenses of the Good Book seem a > > bit overdone to me. How is this more rewarding or even different from > > arguing about the Torah or the Quran or for that matter... > > I don't like exegeses either. CAPITAL isn't a Good Book like the > Bible. A visitor from Mars who observes a Marxist mailing list may fail to see the difference. -raghu. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
