Truth To Power wrote::lol: Marx could never quite bring himself to admit his error in print while he was alive
Oh awesome, can I guess your sourcing on that since you don't seem to want to admit to it?
You've admitted before that you have a lot of trouble with basic economics. But it helps to read it first
but the economic analysis presented in Vol III is unquestionably his, and it unquestionably concludes -- correctly -- that land rent absorbs the profit the capitalist gets as a result of workers being deprived of access to economic opportunity by landowners.
I've found about the only thing that would hint at that I know of, and—as shown—it displays the exact opposite. It would be a real help if you could cite a source so that we could chat about it.
That's how grown-ups tend to have these kinds of discussions
Actually, it is [okay to guess at Marx's feelings and then apply those against the writings that clearly say something different].
Most of us would consider that to be pretty childish. Try reading some other debates and see if you can see how your method is different than other people's.
Wrong again [I am not having difficulty understanding things].
It's very clear that your reading comprehension and grasp of numbers is a little challenged. Do you need help?
It [my evidence] is scattered through Part VI in various circumlocutions. It is a tremendous chore to tease it all out and put it together.
Since I'm pretty familiar with it, you could just point me in the right direction. But here's the thing, TTP, you have admitted to having a lot of trouble with basic economics. To the point that you think everybody else is lying to you when we have a grasp of it. I'm guessing that you read someone on the internet that said this stuff and you've never actually read Kapitol vol. III at all.
It's okay to admit this, because you do have a lot of trouble understanding these very basic things and I want to keep helping you.
Obviously his editors were extremely uncomfortable with the conclusion, and refused to permit Marx to state it directly and unambiguously, even if posthumously.
Now TTP, you didn't even know that he had editors until I taught that to you. How can this be obvious to you when you didn't even know the most basic facts about this work a day ago?
You're embarrassing yourself worse by pretending that these secret messages that only you know from a book you seemingly know nothing about proves your feelings.
It's okay to ask for help if you don't understand. I've offered my services many times. There's no shame in asking a grownup for help!
I am referring to a number of statements scattered throughout Part VI, but AFAIR, not the ones you quoted.
There is a particular passage where he does effectively make that claim, but I don't have it to hand. It may take some time to find it.
Which is it? Scattered statements that only you can divine, or a particular passage that is so vague that you don't know what it says?
Either way, neither of these are particularly compelling.
<yawn> If I can summon the motivation, I'll put some of the pieces together for you. Not that I have any expectation that you will find a willingness to know any facts.
Do you need a nap before you get cranky?
I look forward to the secret message Marx, or Engels, or Kaustky left when you make up your mind who; and the passage/several passages/secret general intonation that you provide when you figure out which one it is. I'll also enjoy reading the damning evidence that you can't remember/makes everything obvious when you remember what it does.
I look forward to helping you with basic reading comprehension of your own source/sources/feeling/memory, whatever you decide that it is!
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!