Re: Value and exchange value

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> Chris B:
> ---------
>
> It is good we are arguing over this important question. I did not
> mean to distort your presentation when I said you emphasise qualitative
> aspects. I was thinking of people who emphasise the quantitative aspects,
> and I think you correct that distortion.
>
> I was then saying what I like especially, not trying to sum the issue up
> in a few words. What I like about your more balanced account is that
> for me it opens the door to discussion of the borderland between human
> activities that are part of commodity society and those activities that
> are not.
>
Jerry
-----

Chris, I knew that you were not trying to distort my position. I thought,
though, that the way you summarized my position gave rise to
misinterpretation.

This is a complex subject that can not, as I have said before, be
accurately condensed into a few sentences.  Perhaps one problem might be
that I sometimes write posts in a deliberately suggestive manner in the
hope that it it will further discussion and participation. One recent
example of this was a question that I asked about how we understand
bourgeois economists.  I did not mean to imply, in so asking, that
Ricardo could be viewed as a bourgeois economist. Erwin's post simply
presented a opportunity for us to continue this thread.

I categorically reject the idea that I, or anyone else, currently have
all the answers regarding Marxist political economy and Marxism. My view
is that we are all "comrades" (equals) who can and must learn from each
other. If anyone tell you that he/she has all the answers, tell that
person to take a hike. No "good" Marxist would ever make such a bold (and
absurd) statement.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------