At 05:08 AM 3/22/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello Ajit, and I am very glad to note in [4474] that cricket is the sport.
These
>Americans may not understand our dialogue, but the image is too good to lose.
>
>I am sure you share my view that this wonderful game was ruined in the
notorious
>Bodyline tour which started the dreadful practice of bowling at the Man
instead
>of the Wicket.
_____________________
I think fast bowlers should be allowed to bowl as many bouncers as they
want, and good batsmen should be able to handle it. But who is bowling
bodyline here?
_______
>
>You say (and I am glad)
>
>"No vendetta. I and Andrew have known each other for years. I know he can
>take it, that's why I dished it out."
>
>But vendettas, like Bodyline, do not only mean hard play; another question is,
>does one attack the Man, or the Target? It is the personal element in polemic,
>rather than the passion of the argument, which can so rapidly become
distasteful
>if some control is not exercised.
____________________
But Alan, I made important theoretical arguments. To which Andrew's
responses were: "hogwash", Ever heard of", "ever hear of", "I don't care
what marx's critics think of", etc. When I came up with more arguments, he
said he is not interested in debating with me. May I ask why? He never said
that to Fred. So either he is too scared of me and really does not have an
argument, or he considers me to be one of those 'untochables'. Moreover, if
you read his last paragraph closely, it is simply unbelievable. The kind of
arrogance he has displayed there is something very rare among Marxist
intellectuals. I wonder, where he gets such arrogance from? And you all are
talking about my behaviour? The fact of the matter is that my direct attack
has exposed to everyone that K-M thesis is incorrect, and the paper is full
of mistakes. And that's the fact.
___________
>
>Fred wrote to us in [2193] as follows:
>
>"One of the main points of the KM interpretation, which is discussed by
>Riccardo, is that the value of constant capital and the value of labor-power
>are not equal to the values of the means of production and the means of
>subsistence, respectively. I agree with this point and have argued as much
>in published work and in previous posts. I argue (and I think that Andrew
>and Ted and Alan would agree) that the reason for these inequalities is that
>constant capital and variable capital are not determined as the values of
>the means of production and the means of subsistence, as in the standard
>Sraffian interpretation, but are instead TAKEN AS GIVEN as quantities of
>money-capital that purchase the means of production and labor-power. The
>value of constant capital and the value of labor-power are then determined
>as the value represented by these given money quantities of constant capital
>and variable capital. This is one of the main points of agreement that has
>emerged in recent work of the "new orthodox Marxists" (as David Laibman has
>called us) and our challenges to the Sraffian interpretation of Marx's theory"
>
>But you begin your criticism of Andrew and Ted [4402] by invoking Fred
>in your support.
>
>Is this really cricket?
______________________
Of course, it is cricket. What I endorsed in their crique was that in the
end K-M approach is nothing but the old iteration method. Of course, Okishio
had shown, long time ago--in 1972, that you could start off from any kind of
arbirary price ratios but you will end up with the simultaneous equation
solutions through iteration when rate of profit equalizes. That's why K-M
also come to the same conclusion. Though they think that iteration takes
place over historical time, which is, of course, a mistake. I do not endorse
what Fred says above. You were the discussant of my paper at ASSA in New
Orleans which presented the critique of the 'new solution'. Fred follows the
'new solution'. I think 'new solution' is weak, as you know. But at least
these people have a way of arriving at the "value of money". They give
arguments to come to that determination. They also don't work with commodity
values but rather with aggregates. K-M approach, on the other hand, makes no
sense.
_________________________
>
>Now, you write:
>
>"I think others such as Carchedi, Carchedi and Haan, etc. all make
>similar mistakes. Right now, I'm too busy with some of the papers I'm
>working on. When I get some free time, I could produce my criticisms of
>Carchedi etc. as well."
>
>I am pleased at this and think this time would be well spent. But can we
>not save you some time? Here is our own Fred Moseley saying things you
>so heartily detest, and so clearly, too.
>
>If you agree with me that it is better to bowl at the target than the man,
>surely it would save you time, reduce the heat, and make for a clearer
discussion,
>if you let fly at Fred. He is away for a week, so your chances of success are
>all the greater. Where do you disagree with the above passage?
_______________________
My disagreement with the 'new solution' was presented at ASSA. It is
currently under consideration with RRPE, If they accept it, you will see it
in the Sept. issue, otherwise later somewhere else. I just got an idea! I
could send the whole paper through attachment, if Jerry and others would
want it. How about that? Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>Alan
>
>
>