sigh
At 09:30 AM 4/28/01 -0700, you wrote:
>
>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