It's disappointing---and frustrating---that you simply will not admit what is obvious to anyone who has read Capital: you haven't read it.Criticisms of Marx's theoretical construct are numerous---and quite valid. Indeed, I once put up an entire web site that criticized Marxist socialism. But I was familiar with what I criticized.
It is glaringly obvious that you have not read what you criticize.
No one would have the audacity to refute the entire labor theory of value as you did without acknowledging exchange-value, ground rent, historically determined social needs, etc., etc. No one would call machinery variable capital without acknowledging that Marx called machinery constant capital. It just isn't possible that anyone familiar with the book would make such conspicuous errors.
Yet you tenaciously insist that you have read it.
That's different than disagreeing with it. That's less than disagreeing with it.
Everest is where you go to deny that you have been intellectually called out as a poseur.
You may impress Frenchy, DonS, and Doc with your specious erudition, but to all who know Marx's work, you are embarrassing yourself in public.
I admire that you want to be able to criticize Marx intelligently.
But you need to do the work first.
I know you must have the last word, so have at it.
But your last word will be spoken in silence.
You win something like jellyfish, meester.
--
McSpotlight: Look, dammit, we put the Debating Rooms up as a place for debate, not personal mudslinging. There is a truly depressing amount of personal abuse going on here at the moment, speaking as the shmuck who has to read it all. When has invective ever added anything to a debate?; when has a point ever been reinforced by someone flaming off; the opposite is always the result.
Even if it takes superhuman effort, please try to remain as civil as possible...
