I thank Ken Hanley for his thoughtful and interesting post. I
think we are getting somewhere.
Ken: I see that I have indeed misunderstood your remarks.
However, you still seem to commit a petitio since in reply you
insist that what you identify as a fallacy is such when that is
part of the
Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough in the
power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them when they
go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of believers in
Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of Shazam
I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the
real world.
The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical
things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some,
deficits of others. There cannot be any the physical surplus.
The fake attempts to show that
: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding
surplus
value and profit
Drewk wrote:
The silence about this issue is deafening.
What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
listen to the silence.
Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be
living under socialism
Of Justin
Schwartz
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of
Marx --
his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what
Perelman
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23908] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that
does not
mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example,
Justin knows
that I
-
From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23914] RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value
and profit
I agree that Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated
attempt to suppress the truth. So how do we decide
I've been suppressed this way for years, so I can identify.
--mbs
What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
listen to the silence.
Andrew Kliman
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding
surplus
value and profit
Drewk wrote:
The silence about this issue is deafening.
What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx
13, 2002 12:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23918] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Andrew writes:
A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the
same thing in this context.
ok
I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity
I appreciated Mat Forstater's post. I agree with most of what he
says
Drewk, you seem to think that proof is something everyone
agrees on.
No, I actually don't, since, as you say:
My experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually
based on methodological issues, philosophical
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23942] Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I
shall repost the following questions (of course if John E or
Manuel
or Gary or Mat has
I agree with Carrol about the absurdity about expecting that all
challenges must be answered, but I hope that the whole thread has stopped.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:18:44PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
Drewk wrote:
Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug:
I am still waiting for my questions
13 matches
Mail list logo
