Gerald Levy (glevy@pratt.edu)
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 15:57:22 -0400 (EDT)
Dear OPErs,
The following was intended for OPE, but went to Michael W. alone,
and then bounced back for some reason. Apologies for all of the
bumpf at the beginning.
david (laibman)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
<clutter, i.e. "humpf" deleted, JL>
A very quick observation. Michael W. is *not* critical of the
transhistorical argument. In his posts he has repeatedly said
that this is a very important line of investigation. So even
if Juriaan needed his permission to explore it (which of course
he does not) the question is moot; he has something better than
Michael's permission; he has his positive approval! All Michael
has been saying is that the transhistorical argument assaying the
use-value properties of various kinds of labor and commodities
from a society-wide standpoint has nothing to do with the issue
of whether a given labor is or is not productive (of value).
david
David Laibman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:29 EST