Okay thanks that s clear I will action that when I get time It is not really that I am attacking anybody but that I am defending myself again the attacks of User Bobrayner against articles that I spent a lot of time on without pay to inform readers The main objection I have to User Bobrayner s editing is that he edits articles without any proper knowledge of the subject and then substitutes his own interpretation the result being a bunch of errors Let me give a recent example to illustrate In the article on the Marxian concept of Surplus product User Bobrayner recently wiped out the sentence The concept plays an important role in Das Kapital but for no good reason After all Marx writes that Since the production of surplus value is the determining purpose of capitalist production the size of a given quantity of wealth must be measured not by the absolute quantity produced but by the relative magnitude of the surplus product Cap Vol 1 Penguin pp 338 339 This is absolutely central to Marx s argument The concept is discussed in more detail across about ten pages and at least five places in Capital Vol 2 and again in at least 11 different places in Capital Vol 3 So it is an important theoretical concept in Das Kapital Yet User Bobrayner wipes that out Next I write Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics surplus economics as well as sociology and other social sciences User Bobrayner wipes out surplus economics archaeology sociology and other social sciences so that the sentence now reads Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics 2 political anthropology cultural anthropology economic anthropology in that case it should really be AND economic anthropology However scholars familiar with the concept know quite well that this concept is used exactly in the way that I said and references can be provided for this in fact I quote plenty examples in the rest of the article However if I provided references then User Bobrayner will no doubt wipe them out on the ground that I am offering a quote farm or some such thing User Bobrayner next wipes out the statement that For most of the history of civil society the meaning of the surplus product was fairly obvious and clear It consisted of 1 that part of what workers produced products offspring or services which they had to hand over to the chief the landowner the lord or the state as a tax rent or tribute and 2 incidental surplus produce in excess of the producers own requirements which was traded for other goods However the meaning of surplus product becomes less clear in capitalist society see below There is nothing particularly controversial about this statement and it could be referenced without any problem I explain the reasoning in subsequent sections of the article Next User Bobrayner wipes out the statement that Since trade always involves two or more parties with their own interests in the matter the meanings of that trade can be construed in different ways by different stakeholders and they can evolve across time If that is the case the economic meanings of trade are never completely fixed once and for all Such ambiguities gave rise to many different interpretations of what fair trade or just trade and therefore trade of benefit to society might be considered to be For a long time it was very difficult for economic theorists to separate out the moral judgement about different kinds of trade from a scientific appraisal of the actual objective processes of trade because commerce was dominated by legal codes and by religion For any scholar of the subject this is quite obvious but nevertheless User Bobrayner wipes it out After wiping out a few more small clarifying bits User Bobrayner modifies the sentence The existence of a surplus product normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour and adds In Marxism the existence of a surplus product normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour But this doesn t even distinguish between Marx and all sorts of Marxisms or Marxists or other historians using this concept When I write carefully With the bourgeois state taxpayers typically have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally That possibility has rarely existed in non capitalist states there any public criticism of the state that the critic could be fined imprisoned or killed then User Bobrayner changes that to With the bourgeois state taxpayers have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally That possibility has