> Charles Brown wrote:>Isn't value theory a premise of Doug's book ?
Doug writes:If you mean that workers produce everything of value (in conjunction with some goods supplied by nature), and that much division and redivision of the spoils goes on, and that finance can obscure those fundamentals, yes. If you mean the rest of it - OCC, the transoformation problem, the distiction between productive and unproductive labor, etc. - then no. Damn waste of time, I say.
The rising OCC theory seems a waste of time except those specifically interested in crisis theory (and the dogmatic version is just a pain, like all dogma),
except that it illuminates what is plain for all to see--the importance not greater purchasing power as a 'solution' and/or solution but of the destruction and the devaluation of capital in the restoration of profitability, accumulation and therefore the realization of surplus value.
rb
- Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism, (continued)
- Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism, Ian Murray Fri 08 Feb 2002, 00:18 GMT
- Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism, Doug Henwood Fri 08 Feb 2002, 00:18 GMT
- Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism, Carrol Cox Fri 08 Feb 2002, 00:49 GMT
- Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism, Doug Henwood Fri 08 Feb 2002, 01:12 GMT
- Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism, Rakesh Bhandari Fri 08 Feb 2002, 00:25 GMT
- Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism, Doug Henwood Fri 08 Feb 2002, 01:18 GMT
- Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism, Rakesh Bhandari Fri 08 Feb 2002, 05:30 GMT
- Re: What is profit?, Ellen Frank Fri 01 Feb 2002, 19:27 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: What is profit?, Sabri Oncu Fri 01 Feb 2002, 20:19 GMT