[ show plain text ]
In 3791, Ajit argues that he never agreed to the definition of cost price
as the money sum laid out as constant and variable capital. He then accuses
me of playing games. This is all quite sad, and evidence that this
discussion is not being conducted in ethical terms even as I have made
efforts to grant to him the validity of many of his criticisms. If Ajit
would simply take the time to consult his own replies to me--as he should
have before accusing me of playing games-- he will most certainly find a
post in which he agreed to exactly this (he will find his own post in which
he copied large parts of one of mine, expressing assent to certain parts
and criticisms of others). I would hope that an apology is forthcoming.
Moreover, there has never been any textual evidence to defend his claim
that the exact term cost price was defined as he claimed by Smith, Ricardo
or Malthus. There was a charge that my interpretation of capital 3
(vintage), p. 270 was unadulaterated nonsense, yet no attempt to offer a
rival interpretation even as I requested one. And to the rest of my message
there was no reply.
I should also add that I am quite bothered by Ajit's self appointed task of
submitting other Marxists' work to criticism so that Marxism can survive
and be taken seriously. Yet the survival of Marxism in the academy cannot
be the main task. Survival in these terms may mean the adulteration of
Marx's theoretical discoveries. Surival is not necessarily truth. The
metaphor of survival of the fittest seems entirely inappropriate to me.
All the best, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT