From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu Dec 07 2006 - 13:42:04 EST
Ajit, I've sort of mulled this over in the head. Yes, follow your instincts. Maybe at a future time you will feel more comfortable on the list. I almost left once for a different reason, so I can imagine how you might be feeling. Cheers, Paul Z. ************************************************************************** THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 --"a benchmark in 9/11 research", review Volume 23 (2006), RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, P. Zarembka, ed, Elsevier *********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, ajit sinha wrote: > --- Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> wrote: > > > I know there have been many loud proclamations about > > how my posts > > should be sent to the junk box and pleas that I > > should be ignored. > > But we see a clear movement here from an incorrect > > interpretation of > > Marx's argument to a better one; and in that gap > > there were my > > putatively ignored posts challenging the flawed > > original formulations. > ______________________________ > Jerry, Please take me off the list. I do not know how > to do this myself. I know I could send this mail > privately to you. But I think it is other members > right to know why I have left the list. I have been > stocked and harassed by this individual named Rakesh > Bhandari and after years of putting up with it, I > recently made it public as I saw he had started to do > the same to you. Now it is clear to me that this guy > is preparing grounds to accuse me of plagiarism, as he > has already done with others. As you know I'm writing > a book, which is important to me and I cannot take > chances. I used to think that the guy is just an idiot > who simply does not understand arguments--as his > evidence of myself correcting my position in the face > of his criticisms or other postings will show to any > one who is knowledgeable about classical political > economy. But it is not just that. It is becoming clear > to me that he is on some mission. He belongs to a > group of people who are carrying out a vendetta > against me and, as you know, putting up > unsubstantiated allegations against me in public > forums. I have a feeling that they also want to bring > this list down--he is just a solder. I can see that he > has not changed his behavior one bit after being > allowed back on the list. Now, what the list does with > him is not my problem. I simply cannot take it > anymore, so I'm getting out. Now I'm on no electronic > list--sometimes I'll miss it but at least one will not > have to deal with Bhandaries of the cyber world, and > that will be a relief. Thanks to others for some good > discussions over the years. Cheers, ajit sinha > ________________________________ > > > > So let's look at this exchange: > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ajit wrote: > > > > > >>Now, the proposition > > >>Marx is making is not that empirically profits and > > >>surplus labor are observed to go together but > > rather > > >>the *cause* of profit lies in surplus labor. This > > >>proposition is simply asserted but never proved by > > >>Marx. > > > > > > > > >Again this is not what Marx intended to do as any > > reading of the > > >first six chapters of > > >Capital I should make clear. Marx *deduces* that > > *cause*; he does not > > >directly prove it or assert it! > > >If value regulates price, then the difference in > > the monetary > > >expression of C' and C in the circuit of capital > > (M-C-P-C'-M') must > > >have resulted the appropriation of unpaid labor > > time. > > > > > > Then Ajit later submitted this correction of his > > view a few days later: > > > Before Marx no political economist had a good > > >theory of profit (except for taking surplus as gift > > of > > >nature). It is Marx's great originality that he > > tries > > >to develop a proper theory of profit determination > > (an > > >originality for which Marx is not given proper > > credit > > >because of Marx influenced reading of Ricardo). Now > > to > > >do so, Marx first develops a so-called theory of > > value > > >where commodities are supposed to exchange > > according > > >to their labor content. From this proposition he > > >derives a particular exchange relation of real > > wages > > >with labor-power and discovers the source of > > surplus > > >production in surplus labor. Then this surplus > > labor > > >so derived from the equal value exchange > > proposition > > >is used to develop the rate of profit. > > > > And even before this correction, I had already > > submitted this > > implicit challenge to Ajit's understanding of the > > logic of Marx's > > argument upon readmission to this list. > > > > >Please let us remember that Marx did not derive the > > labor theory of > > >value from his explanation of > > >surplus value, defined as M'-M. In that sense > > surplus value was > > >recognized long before Marx; the question of course > > is whether it was > > >buried by neoclassical economics as Joan Robinson > > complained often > > >and vociferously. > > > > > > Marx's explanation of the persistence of the > > surplus value value > > >presupposes the labor theory of value, for on that > > basis--as well as > > >Gil's favorite assumption of price value > > equivalence--Marx reasons > > >that capital considered here as a perfect aliquot > > of the whole cannot > > >have paid for labor time actually expended. > > > > > >What did it then purchase--the worker's ability to > > perform labor...We > > >all know the story...If the labor theory of value > > is true, then that > > >ability must have a lesser value than the value > > added by expenditure > > >of labor. And indeed input output analysis confirms > > that as true--as > > >even the critic Meghnad Desai himself underlines. > > Of course that does > > >not resolve the question of exploitation because > > the wage could > > >represent full payment for labor performed, > > discounted in terms of > > >labor's present time preference. The problem here > > is a fetishization > > >of time which is of course better than its > > elimination. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Music Unlimited > Access over 1 million songs. > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST