Re Gil 6367: Jerry: >>I don't remember that. Gil: did you ever claim to be a Copernican or >>suggest that your perspectives are Copernican? Gil: >Heavens, no. Here's the relevant passage from my post 4243: > >>Would you say that embracing this hypothetical theory is tantamount to >>rejecting "Marx's theory of the capitalist mode of production"? If so, why? >> If the theory affirms Marx's central claim that capitalist profit is based >>on systematic exploitation of the working class (including the dynamic >>aspects of Marx's argument, let's say) without needing to introduce an >>additional theoretical entity--commodity labor values--and analyze its >>possible connection to another entity--commodity prices---couldn't this be >>viewed as an advance in, rather than a rejection of, Marx's theoretical >>project, in something like the same way that Copernican cosmology >>represented an advance over its predecessor, in part because it dispensed >>with the cumbersome apparatus of Ptolemaic epicycles? > > >I was simply characterizing a possible outcome to a thought experiment >based on a reference to a well-recognized episonde in the history of >science, without at all suggesting that any such "Copernican" revolution >has been achieved in the present context. Ale: Heavens Gil! If your --as Jerry says-- "perspectives" were not "Copernican" why did you refer *precisely* to that well-recognized episode in the history of science?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST