A brief reply to one point that Paul C. made in ope-l 2497:
In response to Duncan, Paul writes "Your disdain for the real world verges
on the platonic."
I was not pleased by the tone of this comment. Nor do I think it is true.
In the brief passage Paul quoted immediately before making this remark,
Duncan wrote: "The stipulation that we regard value added as the expression
of living labor time links the reading of capitalist value relations to THE
UNDERLYING HUMAN RELATIONS OF EXPLOITATION" (emphasis added). How is this a
disdain for the real world?
(BTW: I myself do not fully accept this statement of Duncan's. The statement
reflects his view that the link between new labor and value added is
tautological, which I don't think is so, and I wouldn't say that human
relations of exploitation "underly" capitalist value relations. Maybe we
have a different understanding of these terms, though.)
Andrew Kliman