Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

It's because of the male fetish of obstinacy :-) It's precisely why Justin, myself and others have
been in the so what camp for years. The mere fact that the debate is interminable should count
against those who want to cling to the carcass.

Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:00 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:22552] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities


As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?

I could understand if you were using the theory to predict the
ultimate implosion of capitalism, as the OCC approaches infinity and
the ROP approaches zero. But people don't seem to do that any more.

It seems to me that it's somehow a symbolic battle over "orthodoxy,"
with the rejecters using their rejection to advertise their rejection
of orthodoxy, and the defenders using it as a badge of loyalty. Aside
from advertising these affiliation, what's the point?

Doug