> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:26:14 -0700
> Reply-to: ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu
> From: wpc@clyder.gn.apc.org (Paul Cockshott)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: [OPE-L:1878] Re: [MIKE WILLIAMS] Re: subjectivity
> Massimo
> -------
> This is what your DEFINITION of Marxian theory of value lead to. My
> definition of Marxian theory of value is that it is not subject free,
> and preciselly because of this not only "does not obscure real
> economic relations" but bring these AT THE CENTRE of the enquiry.
> As far as the question of testability is concerned, the issue is
> quite secondary.
>
> Paul
> ----
> You can read it this way if you wish, and in Marx's earlier
> more philosphical writings you certainly have some support.
> For my part, I found Althusser and Balibars argument, that in
> Capital itself what is presented is a process without a subject,
> convincing.
>
Fine, then it is a matter of interpretation. Mine based on Marx's
earlier writing and yours on Althusser and Balibar. So, please, when
you say that "marixan theory of value is etc. etc." add the clause
"according to an Althusserian, Baliabrian interpretation of
Marx's theory of value etc. etc. " . This will warn any
listener/reader that there are in fact quite contrasting reading of
Marx which may lead to quite significant divergent conclusions.
Massimo