[ show plain text ]
Fred B. Moseley wrote:
> 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.
__________________________
Fred, I have no time to discuss textual evidence from Marx with you right now.
I have tried to focus the debate only on one issue that is that your
interpretation of Marx's value and transformation problem is logically
incoherent, which i think i have proven beyond any doubt. If this is what Marx
was talking about then he will not be somebody worth taking seriously--but, of
course, i don't think Marx was talking such logical incoherence, that's why i
call your interpretation "your theory". As far as my own interpretation of
Marx is concerned, they are already in print. Take a look at:
'A Critique of Part One of *Capital* vol. one: The Value Controversy
Revisited', *Research in Political Economy* vol. 15, 1996, pp. 195-222.
'Transformation Problem', *Encyclopedia of Political Economy* vol.2, Routledge
1999
'The Transformation Problem: Is the Standard Commodity a Solution?', *RRPE*,
32(2), 2000.
And two short entries on 'transformation problem' and 'labor theory of value'
are coming out in *Readers Guide to Social Sciences* soon. If there is any
interest, then i could send those entries to you. If you have any specific
criticisms of these works then i'll be happy to respond. I, however, simply do
not have time to go through those unending discussion about how do you
interpret this passage or that passage etc. on ope-l. As far as Marx's
derivation of money in vol. one is concerned, we already had a long debate on
this issue on ope-l a few years ago, you could check the archives. Cheers,
ajit sinha
>
>
> Comradely,
> Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EDT