Julio, I think Jurriaan is responding to a PEN-L post from Angelus Novus containing a link to a lecture by Milios on the topic in the subject heading. I haven't contributed to this thread, but for what it's worth, I was tempted to do so by the same passage in the lecture that Jurriaan cites (and for pretty much the same reason: the claim in the first sentence of the cited passage is not supported, and furthermore seems inconsistent with Marx's treatment of commodity values in Capital V.I). I didn't post anything because I figured this was a discussion to have with Milios directly, but the issue is certainly relevant to PEN-L interests, and courtesy of the link provided by A.N., everybody here can access the argument in question. So the context was provided. I guess that leaves the question of whether it's comradely or considerate to discuss the details of somebody's lecture in their absence, given that the lecture is available online.
Gil -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Julio Huato Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:39 AM To: Progressive Economics Subject: [Pen-l] Marx's Monetary Theory of Value Jurriaan wrote: > According to John Milios, > > "Marx shows that the products of labour become values because they are > produced within the framework of the capital relation. Further, that value necessarily manifests itself in the form of money." I'm not sure, but you seem to be having an argument with somebody on some other list. It is not very productive (let alone comradely or plain considerate) to bring a discussion from list A to list B, where context is absent and the people you're arguing with have no chance to reply. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
