From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Sep 15 2006 - 08:26:42 EDT
Ajit and Howard: OK, Ajit. Thanks for your re-cap and narrative. I agree that we should stick to one question at a time. Let's stick to the question: is money an *essential* aspect of capitalism? (it's not that I am "more comfortable with" the concept of essential; rather, it's that I am more comfortable having a *cross-paradigm discussion* over that topic.) Let me ask you a direct 'yes or no' question: -- is money essential to capitalism? If you answer that question 'yes' then that will lead us in one direction of discussion; if you answer it 'no' then it will lead us in another direction. It should be clear, on the basis of other posts, that I would answer that question with a 'yes'. (Ajit: skip the following please.) ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that "essential" ands "essence" are not the same. My reference to "inner nature" -- which Ajit took exception to -- was in relation to the issue of *scope*. I.e. in a previous post, I claimed that the scope of an analysis depends upon both the "inner nature" of the subject and the "purpose" of the analysis (and went on to quip that "scope follows function"). You will remember that this reference arose out of our exchange about the 6-book-plan. As I suggested, one's perspective on the "scope" of Marx's analysis is thus related to what he sought to accomplish: hence if you view him as an 'economist' whose main purpose was to critique economic theory then one tends to view that question in a certain way than if you sees Marx and his purpose in another way. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT