From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Sun May 16 2004 - 14:02:55 EDT
Simon Mohun wrote: >For what it's worth, I think that Jerry has done and is doing a fine job. Again not the question. There are certainly those who think he has done a fine job or moderately good job. >I don't agree that Jerry drove the TSS school off the list. Several people quit over his moderation. That's not in question. We don't yet have a list of who quit in protest of his moderation. I know the names include Julian Wells (who had only contributed substantive posts to this list), Alejandro Ramos (whose translations of Tugan are a true gift and whose posts were extremely stimulating), Massimo (whose work has inspired many), Alan Freeman (whose early debates with Foley have never been matched for depth and brilliance on this list), perhaps Bruce Roberts? YOu don't question the general principle that administrative duties should be rotated and that terms should not exceed nine years. I wouldn't want Levy to overclaim what you actually wrote. > >I am interested to see the TSS book has finally appeared. It doesn't >contain some recent critiques of the TSS interpretation of course....but I >have heard a rumour that Alan Freeman is giving a paper to the Heterodox >Conference this July in Leeds called 'A Reply to Mohun and Veneziani' or >something similar, although I haven't heard anything else. Most of what >might be interesting papers listed on the IWGVT website are 'unavailable >for copyright reasons' - a mildly amusing outcome of a conflict between >IWGVT principles and bourgeois law. Why is it amusing rather than unfortunate? Well shouldn't there be debate between Mohun and TSS representatives on this list? Perhaps it could have the same productive outcome as the one between Foley and Freeman and Kliman. How should the valuation of inventories be handled? You obviously think that TSS is important enough to criticize. My guess is that Freeman's reply will not be without its own power. I also guess that much of the reply to Laibman and Foley will be used in the reply to Veneziani who may not have studied the debate in Research in Political Economy. I certainly don't think Foley and Laibman have dealt knock out blows to TSS. Allin's criticism of the school's attempt to dissolve dualism stands, in my opinion; as far as I can see, the TSS school has not yet replied to it.That is why I am more interested in Roberts' non dualistic analysis. Rakesh >Simon > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Simon Mohun >Centre for Business Management, >Queen Mary, University of London, >Mile End Road, >London E1 4NS, >UK > >Tel: +44-(0)20-7882-5089 (direct); +44-(0)20-7882-3167 (Dept. Office); Fax: >+44-(0)20-7882-3615 >Webpage: www.qmul.ac.uk/~ugte154/ > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 17 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT