Judy,
I've been writing most of what i've been writing lately to make a point
about interpreting what Marx wrote from various oblique angles. To not
recognize that in Marxists economics, labor, and only labor is the source of
value, is equivalent to not knowing that the number 4 is larger than the
number three when trying to interpret a problem in arithmetic. It's simply
not a question of interpretation. On the other hand, what the implications
of this position are concerning Marx's ecology, if in fact he had one, is a
question of interpretation and that is where the disagreement started. But
one can not proceed to that level without first recognizing (comprehending)
that for Marx labor, and only labor is the source of value. Why Phil
decided to disagree about this axiom of marxist economics certainly doesn't
have anything to do with an attempt to interpret Marx, as you yourself
suggested back channel.
> For you
> to treat your interpretation of Marx as a matter of (irrefutable) fact is
> to invite the ire of those who wish to engage in a dialog -- that is, an
> exchange of views.
Invite the ire? that's quite presumptuous even if it were true that this is
a question of interpretation. and even so, don't we learn to control our
"ire".
>AS Bakhtin makes clear, meaning is never IN the words
> themselves but in the exchange between "voices" -- i.e., voiced
utterances,
> language used by someone in response to what was said before and in
> anticipation of a response .... Hence, the refusal to engage in an other's
> sensemaking is a kind of bullying. Phil was not engaging in dialog, but
you
> are the one I'm addressing, because you so regularly perform as the judge
> of what other people say.
Aren't you now falling into the same place you accuse me of being? What if
I take the position that Bakhtin never ever considered voices to be
individual, that all his "voices" were in fact collective and that no voice
was ever the position of a single individual and that therefor there isn't
even a question of refusal at issue?
The question of "sensemaking" simply doesn't make any sense here, I think
Phil knows very well that labor and only labor is the source of value is
Marxist economics and that he was just going off on me for reasons that had
everything to do with his perception of me and nothing to do with marxist
economics.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:08 PDT