In reply to Ajit [5688] For the reasons stated by Jerry [5690] I do not see much point in playing the issue like a game of chess, which I suppose to mean that we have to begin arguing from scratch (move 1). Or are we in the middle of the game? (In the last case, of course, we both know the previous moves we took). Of course I am always prepared to discuss any particular argument of the systematic. To continue this (dubious) methaphor: having played the game so far (say at move 49) we can always go back together and anlyse a previous move in the light of where we got (49). But this is different from asking me (as Ajit seems to do) to set up a new game (move 1). But even a "joint" analysis of previous moves does not make much sense if your ideas are fixed. You write: "we need to follow the rule of chess. My point is that all the versions of Hegelian interpretation of value problematic in Marx lead to dead end." Of course that is a legitimate standpoint. But it is not very fruitfull for an intellectual discussion. (BTW, I suppose that by "Hegelian" you mean "systematic dialectical" -- but that is not obvious for anybody.) Geert Reuten At 11:56 30-05-01 +0530, Ajit Sinha wrote: > > >Geert Reuten wrote: > >> In reply to Ajit [5680]. >> Why your demand to set out in the discussion on this list elementary VFT? >> Of course we can have brief reminders, but these can be no substitute >> for polished published work. >> Perhaps we have different opinions about OPEL? >> Geert > >____________________________ > >My point is simple. To get anywhere in this kind of a debate on such a forum we >need to follow the rule of chess. My point is that all the versions of Hegelian >interpretation of value problematic in Marx lead to dead end. The Hegelians like >you and others would of course deny it. So you make your first move and then I make >my counter move, and this way we may be able to see whether my claim is true or >false. That's why I have been picking up first moves (e.g. as Nikky pointed out >"the problem for theory is ...) and putting forward my counter move, but >unfortunately the next move is never coming forth from the other party. Cheers, >ajit sinha > >> >> >> At 5/29/01Tuesday, you wrote: >> >> >nicola taylor wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > ... i.e. the problem for theory is >> > > to establish how the social form of production for exchange *determines* >> > > the necessary (internal) interconnection of labour and value and of labour >> > > time and price. >> > >> >_____________________ >> > >> >So how does it do it? As long as you don't tell us exatly how "the social form >> >of production for exchange [in capitalism--added] *determines* the necessary >> >(internal) interconnection of labour and value and of labour time and price." >> >How are we to understand what you are saying has any meaning or not. >> >Furthermore, we also need to know whether "labour" and "labour time" have the >> >same meaning above or different; and if different, what is the difference >> >between the two. Moreover, how do you define "value" and "prices" above? >> >Cheers, ajit sinha >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > As I see it, our differences on all other questions stem from these >> > > differences of interpretation and method. >> > > >> > > comradely >> > > Nicky >> > > >> > > ---------------------------------- >> > > Nicola Mostyn (Taylor) >> > > Faculty of Economics >> > > Murdoch University >> > > Australia >> > > Telephone: 61-8-9385 1130 > > > ˙WPC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:09 EDT