: 1,085 words to prove that while Gee may have read Capital, he certainly didn't understand it.I'm excited at the prospect of now seeing the stoller light.....
: Gee has set up Marx's theory (in 'basic' language) so the many sophisticated and intricate exceptions to and qualifications of Marx's theory, as stated throughout Marx's work BY Marx, cannot be plausibly explained.
I'm excited at the prospect of observing said explanation coming now....
: Perhaps I should explain all of Gee's omissions, clarify the many points that he made a mess of...
Yes you should - otherwise youre assuming that the labor theory of value stands uncontested by making the lousy 'if you dont understand it ofcourse you wont understand it' type of circular argument, thus neatly isolating yourself from anyone who dares contest it by essentiall saying 'ah, but I understand it and if you didi then you would agree' - this is the bemusing disagreement=misunderstanding/error formula, and its rather laughable.
Pointing people in the general direction of a bookstore is not really a good way of arguing your point - you havent contested anything in the post, perhaps you are not capable of doing so. Thats ok though - you dont have to 'know it all' when it comes to Marx - if youre less than confident in explaining why the labor theory of value as proposed by marx is *not* a poor analysis tool then asking people to read the book, in the hope that they will find the answers there, is quite a logical response.
I hope your response here wasnt just a cop-out.
: Then again, why should I? (Would Frenchy get it?)
You should, only if you want to discuss and clarify the points made - whether it be for yourself, me or Frenchy - or indeed any other reader.
