Geert REUTEN wrote: > 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? ________________________ Fact of the matter is that I quoted Nicola Taylor stating "... i.e. the problem for theory is to establish 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." This is where i enter the game. My question is, please explain it to us how exactly this "(internal) interconnection of labour and value and of labour time and price" is established? Is it an illegitimate question to ask according to the VFT perspective? If not, then why not give a simple answer to a simple question then unnecessarily dance around it? ___________________________ > (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). _________________________ By the way, I'm not totally unaware of your work. Only recently i read your piece in Riccardo's edited *Rivista Di Politica Economica* (thanks to Riccardo for his usual generosity), which i found to be unconvincing with regard to the question of measure of value. That's why I think that by arguing blow by blow we might be able to get somewhere. I'll also be happy to read your book. Please send it to what is going to be my new address from the end of June. Thanks for the offer. Dr. Ajit Sinha Professor Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics Pune 411004, India _____________________________ > > > 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.) ___________________ My ideas are hardly fixed. But I, of course, am not a beginner when it comes to Marx's value theory. So I have also thought through some of the other ways of dealing with it and where do they end up. I may be wrong. But we can find that out only after arguing the issue step by step. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > 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