From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 14 2007 - 13:00:34 EST
> Rakesh, I did not mean it in a negative sense. I do not regard > impulsiveness alwas as a negative virtue. In middle of hot debates it > happens to all of us. It is just the most authentic expression of our > feelings and thoughts, though it may sometime be destructive. As Michael Lebowitz clarifies, he had a lot of reasons to leave OPE-L. And I said nothing destructive in the posts which have led to this controversy. I did not respond to flames with flames. I insulted no one, took no issue with anyone who did not want to communicate me, I continued to express my long standing interest in dialectical method as unique to Marx's social science in comparison to those whom he critiqued--Smith and Ricardo. That's it. I defend the originality of some of my insights into Grossman's work and its relation to Kalecki's theory, and a piece is forthcoming in Science and Society on Andrew Trigg's "Kaleckian" critique of Grossman (another recent piece appeared in Rethinking Marxism and I have a long forthcoming piece in Historical Materialism). . I am thankful to Andrew Trigg and Rick Kuhn for comments on the Grossman piece as well as the S&S editorial staff for publishing it. I think OPE-L has been helpful to me in terms of testing my understandings and critiques. For example, I have reached the conclusion that Ian Wright has simply reinvented MacCullogh's strategy for saving the labor theory of value--proposing an idiosyncratic definition of labor value so as to remove its objective contradiction with the law of profit. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 00:00:03 EST