Re Rakesh's [5710]: > Jerry, that intent does not come across if your > opponent is characterized in the ridiculed form > of the black knight. What you call ridicule might be better called a sense of humor -- not such a bad trait for Marxians to have. > I disagee that much of benefit was derived from > five years of discussion of the the putative > logical problems in chapter five and > the alleged mistake of not thinking out the > implications of the value-use value dialectic. Gil has contributed to discussions on more than just Ch. 5 and Steve has contributed to discussions on more than just the use-value of machinery. It might be worthwhile noting, for instance, that Gil is probably has the best understanding of game-theory on the list (as well as being the only active member from a Rational Choice Marxism/Analytical Marxism perspective) and Steve is probably better up-to-date than anyone else on the list about chaos and complexity theory as well as non-linear dynamic models (including business cycle and financial models.) These are not insignificant advantages for us. > Gary did not respond to your or my > questions about the methodology of comparative > statics. So what? Maybe he didn't have time. Do you expect other listmembers to jump whenever you have a comment or question? > I can't get > anything out of Ajit's post because he now > refuses to answer my > responses since this would be a waste of his > time. Just a little while ago, in [5705], you wrote that you 'learned' from Ajit. > I think they have effectively derailed what was > supposed to be the > point of this list--to extend Marx's unfinished > project into a theory > of the world market, the state, central bank > policy, etc. Don't place the blame on them. Even if they had never been on the list, I sincerely doubt that we would have progressed any further towards that goal -- which I have not given up on and continue to raise, in one form or another, for discussion. We discuss what listmembers are willing to discuss -- and they have been more willing to discuss "Capital questions" to date than "Extending Marx" questions. This is not entirely a bad thing: my feeling is that all of the issues that listmembers think are important will eventually "come out in the wash" so to speak -- i.e. they will eventually be discussed. Sure I'd like to see some issues discussed earlier rather than later, but that's up to us -- _all of us_, not just a few listmembers. Perhaps the 102 degree heat has something to do with your comments today. If you were in New York now you'd be considerably cooler. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:09 EDT