Andrew here. In ope-l 565, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote
"[regarding Tony Smith's view that the discussion on abstract labor has
proceeeded on the assumption that Marx held one consistent view, and our job
is just to find out what it was] I said exactly the opposite ... and I was
attacked for that, e.g. by Andrew K."
First, I do not think a disagreement is necessarily an "attack." Second, I
did *not even disagree* with Ricardo's view. I was making general methodo-
logical points about interpretation, directed to no one individual or their
positions in particular. In fact, I do think Marx's views underwent change
and development and I would certainly *not* assert without demonstration
that *everything* in _Capital_ is completely consistent--and it would be
practically impossible to demonstrate that. Why does Riccardo think that
he was under attack? I'm racking my brains on this.
The only thing I can think of is that I said allegations of inconsistency in
Marx's work must be demonstrated, not merely asserted. But Riccardo wrote
a post in response in which he *agreed* with this point. So I'm at a loss.
Ciao--Andrew