Re: [OPE] Reply to the thinker

Let me clarify:

My impression is that the 9 claims of value-form theory that Jurriaan
mentioned are motivated by

    (a) an unwillingness or fear to deal with the quantitative aspect of
    the LTV because it puts the argument on the terrain of mathematics
    and/or statistical evidence.

    (b) some critique of commodification or an anti-consumerist
    perspective rather than one centered on class struggle.

    (c) some post-modernist idea of complete incommensurability.

But these are mere impressions. The question is the validity of the
theory and the perspective itself. (c) is really damaging because it has
anti-scientific corollaries.

//Dave Z

GERALD LEVY wrote:
> > I was referring only to the theoretical arguments [...]
>
>
> Dave Z:
>
> Well, that is confusing. The following doesn't sound to me like an
> engagement
> with the theoretical arguments of VFT. Indeed, quite explicitly, it
> refers to
> the "motivations" and alleged inspirations of VFT.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
> > I can only say that this is more or less my impression of the
> motivations underlie
> > the arguments of the advocates of "value-form" theory in Sweden.
> Moreover, they
> > seem to be inspired by some sort of post-modernist idea that
> different historical
> > epochs are completely incommensurable.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Mar 13 14:11:49 2009