IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Thanks Jerry, I keep arguing the same essential points re labour and value to Hegel-inspired systematic dialecticians as I do to Michael Eldred on OPE-L (hello to all concerned). Thus my remark has absolutely nothing to do with 'guilt by association', though it can unfortunately be interpreted as such by those who have a very different view to my own. Andy > Andy B wrote on Monday, May 12: > > > Michael W's recent post > > exemplifies the sort of Hegel-inspired miscomprehension of labour > > that I argue against. Michael Eldred's contributions to OPEL, where > > labour has no centrality, seem to be a connected if extreme > > development of such a position. > > Hi Andy. The above, whether you intended it or not, reads like a > "guilt by association" claim. Whatever Michael E's position is now > can not be legitimately read as a criticism -- or "extreme > development" -- of Mike W's position or that of other value-form > theorists. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > PS to Howard: I'll check out your references in Rubin and I > hope to get back to you soon about that topic.
- (OPE-L) Gloves Off--May 12, 2003, gerald_a_levy Tue 13 May 2003, 22:21 GMT
- Value and labour (from Jurriaan), Rakesh Bhandari Tue 13 May 2003, 15:35 GMT
- value and labour, Andrew Brown Mon 12 May 2003, 10:49 GMT
- (OPE-L) Re: value and labour, gerald_a_levy Mon 12 May 2003, 11:48 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) Re: value and labour, Andrew Brown Mon 12 May 2003, 13:04 GMT
- Re: value and labour, Paul Zarembka Mon 12 May 2003, 13:16 GMT
- Re: value and labour, Andrew Brown Mon 12 May 2003, 14:00 GMT
- Re: value and labour, Rakesh Bhandari Tue 13 May 2003, 02:15 GMT
- Re: value and labour, Andrew Brown Tue 13 May 2003, 09:26 GMT