Re Steve K's [5753]: > But surely one hundred and thirty years of trying, without finding a = solution that someone else could not find a logical flaw in, is a sign = that maybe this problem *is* insoluble--and that maybe therefore there = is something wrong with the initial presumption that "labour is the only = source of value, and value the only source of profit"...< The opposite conclusion is possible as well: after 130 years of trying to find a 'solution' to a _problem_ that doesn't exist, we should recognize that there is no _problem_ here at all. Equally, one could turn the same point around on you by asking you (as I did previously): after many years of trying, have you convinced any scholar(s) -- Marxist _or_ non-Marxist -- of your [unconventional] interpretation of Marx such that anyone has supported _in print_ that position on the use-value of machinery? Perhaps you should at least consider after all of these years whether your perspective on this issue is not correct after all? Note that the agreement by referees to support publication of an article/book does not imply agreement with the positions taken by the author. You argue that the TP is 'insoluable'. Yet, there have been many 'solutions' claimed, including (but not limited to) the Shaikh solution, the "New Solution", etc. For your 'conclusion' to even be seriously considered to be worthy of discussion, you must *prove* that these solutions are not solutions after all. Yet you have offered no such logical *proof* -- rather you have offered *assertions*. Thus, you have only proven a contrary theorem: the infinite quantity of possible objections to theoretical positions theorem (IQPOTTPT). This theorem states that for any theorem there are potentially an infinite quantity of possible objections. It follows, I believe, that no theoretical perspective can progress if its advocates spend their energy just (or mainly) answering all possible objections. And, indeed, until such time as you have proven what you have asserted, it would seem more reasonable from the perspective of efficient task management for Marxists to be concerned with other issues. There is an old political truism that says: 's/he who controls the agenda, controls the meeting'. I believe that Marxists have let the Marx-critics control the agenda which has then meant that what are important questions from the standpoint of a Marxist agenda have not been adequately considered. So, my answer is for Marxists to ask themselves what _they_ think is important and to go from there. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT