Value debate: John's objections

Jim Jaszewski jjazz at
Sat Dec 16 07:55:51 MST 1995

On Fri, 15 Dec 1995 Steve.Keen at wrote:

> is something which has not been achieved in the broad marxian tradition
> in over 100 years; I very much doubt that it will be achieved on this
> list either. The failures of communication which have occurred between
> J,J&J (and myself, of course!) are simply more in a continuing tradition
> of such misinterpretations.

	This is where you are likely wrong.  The Marxism List is _exactly_
what is needed to take such debates forward -- it is only natural that the
debate would flounder at all the usual obstacles;  it's what comes AFTER
that's _different_ -- and so important..! 

	We have to be in it for the LONG HAUL here.

> The point which I think John rightly found offense with, even though no
> offense was intended, was Chris's apportionment of the "blame" for
> this predominantly to John's academic background. This is not, in
> my opinion, the root cause. In fact, part of John's probable
> (and my definite!) frustration is the lack of awareness of the
> intellectual history of the value debate--a history that includes
> both academics and non-academics--evidenced by some of Jim and Juan's
> posts.

	(which Jim here?!?) So _enlighten_ us then;  this is why we are
all(?) here!!

> John's position, in my opinion, crystallises this knowledge of
> intellectual turmoil; Juan and Jim seem to write with the certainty
> one gets from lack of such knowledge. So the problem may lie, not
> in John's academic background, but the lack of such background in
> the other debaters.

	Academics have to understand how arrogant this sounds...  :>

|                    stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal                   |
|             if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig            |
|         more info:          |
| Jim Jaszewski <jjazz at>     PGP Public Key available. |
|                      |

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list