[ show plain text ]
An additional point in response to Ajit:
I have emphasized throughout my posts that I am trying to present an
interpretation of Marx's theory, as a necessary preliminary to evaluating
its logical consistency. I have presented lots of textual evidence and
overall interpretative arguments to support my
"macro-monetary" interpretation of Marx's theory.
Ajit scoffs at the idea that I am presenting an interpretation of Marx's
theory and insists on calling my interpretation "your theory" . However,
Ajit has not discussed any of the textual evidence or interpretative
arguments I have presented. And he has resolutely refused to even briefly
summarize for us his own interpretation of Marx's theory. And yet, he
continues to arrogantly dismiss my interpretation as obviously wrong. On
what grounds?
Ajit, haughty dismissal is no substitute for serious debate. If you think
my interpretation of Marx's theory is incorrect, then you have to explain
why and present your own alternative interpretation with supporting
textual evidence. Are we just supposed to just take your exalted word for
it, that my interpretation is incorrect and your's is correct, without a
serious discussion of the textual evidence and the interpretative
arguments? I don't think so.
I would welcome a serious discussion of the textual evidence and
interpretative arguments.
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EDT