Therealmovement.wordpress.com Website Review

I received this reply from Brendan Cooney, who appears to be very miffed because I criticize him for spreading confusion on the question > I don’t discuss labor power or surplus value in this chapter > because this is a chapter about abstract labor. Similarly, Marx > develops the concept of abstract labor in chapter 1 of Capital, but > waits until later chapters to develop Surplus Value and Labor Power. > However, my chapter does discuss the fact that in a capitalist > society workers are developed for their general capacity to do any > labor, rather than for specific labors, which is related to the > concept of labor power. > However, I really can’t respond to any of your criticism as it is > a constantly moving target. First you say that I neglect to say that > labor-power and abstract labor are the same concept. Then, when > pressed for a citation of this, you provide a citation which does > not prove your claim. When I point out the logical fallacy of your > claim, you now change your argument to be that I should have > “mentioned labor power”, without explaining why this is > necessary in order to explain the concept of abstract labor. You > have never responded to my criticism of the idea that labor power > cannot be the same thing as abstract labor. Then you leap to the > claim that I have argued that surplus value can be produced with out > producing value… I don’t see the connection. Then onto something > about Christopher Arthur, which is completely irrelevant and has > nothing to do with my original post. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a “neutral” or “objective” reading of a given political text or thinker.1 If a reading presents itself as such, there is likely a hidden agenda veiled behind an appeal to authority (e.g. “Well, Lenin clearly