From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 08:59:57 EDT
Ajit writes: > I think most of the people >will agree that my position is at least clear and >understandable, but yours is not. If you cannot state exactly what has to be assumed about money for the curious effect on the net product to obtain from a change in distribution, then you are not being clear. You are stating that a monetary effect obtains without explaining why, and you are not clearly defending the reasonableness of assuming money has the properties it has to have for said effect to obtain. The clarity and understandability you claim to have achieved dissipate upon closer analysis. Also, by your own admission, your symptomatic reading of this part of Capital simply makes Marx's analysis of the peculiarities of the equivalent form and ideal genesis of money superfluous. You ask me to give my interpretation of what this all about (see Hans' reply to the mango theory of money). Well, no, your interpretation has to make sense of the text (or even of the text's contradictions) or fail. And it fails. > >Please tell us what is the peculiarities of the >equivalent form or "ideal genesis" of the money form? >and why do we have to make of anything of this? This is from someone who claims to have cracked the nut of the first part of Capital! Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT