Ale asks in [ 6369]: > --Firstly, I'd like to ask Jerry (I do doubt other people are following > this...) to check the original exchange between Gil & me following his > "Copernican thought experiment". Some of the things I wrote briefly now > --and I have no so much time at the moment-- would require the context of > the original discussion to be properly understood. The original reference by Gil (that you cited before) was in 4243. The discussion that you had with him was in a thread called 'Steve on the worthlessness of labor at (sic, JL) the source of value'. In 4244 you quizzed Gil on a number of questions including the Copernican reference. In 4250 and again in 4266 Gil stated explicitly that the reference to Copernicus in 4243 was in the context of a 'thought experiment'. This, at least the way I read it, did not mean that Gil was claiming that his theory represented a Copernican advance over Marx. Instead, in the context of his 'thought experiment' he asked a series of *questions* of a *hypothetical* nature. I can see why you might have thought that Gil was claiming a Copernican advance but a *literal* reading of what he wrote does not support that conclusion, IMO. Of course, none of the above speaks to the essential theoretical issues under dispute between Gil and you (and Steve and others) on that thread. Indeed, the issue of Copernican advances was just a minor issue of dispute between the two of you -- or so I thought. Yet -- and I think Gil would agree -- no Marxists should at present claim the title of being 'Copernicans' in relation to Marx or other Marxists. I agree with you that it is not a designation that helps the process of dialogue. Others -- if they are interested -- are welcome to revisit this exchange in the archives (look under October, 2000) http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive to see who said what and when. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST