I wish knuckleheads who set out out to "disprove" Marx would actually read him.
The biggest false assumption in these kinds of debates is that these "critics" usually assume that they and Marx both have a common shared understanding of what "value" is, and that Marx is wrong concerning it's quantitative determination. But this conception is wrong. Marx's concept of value is ***definitional***; that is to say, Marx **defines** value as socially necessary abstract labor time. There is nothing to "prove" here. It's simply the meaning Marx gives to the term. Sort of like the term "work" has an entirely different meaning in Physics than it does from our everyday language. You can always tell the lazy bourgeois ideologues who've never actually read Capital: they always get about 1/4 into Chapter One, mistakenly assume that "value" is merely a synonym for "price", and then decide to "refute" Marx on the basis of such a faulty assumption. Solution: smack these "anthropologists" over the head with Vol. 23 of the MEW, and then give them a copy of Michael Heinrich's _Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital_ as a basic education in Marxian terminology. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
