OPE-L
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

[OPE-L:5688] Re: Response to Fred - 1



You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.



Geert Reuten wrote:

> In reply to Ajit [5680].
> Why your demand to set out in the discussion on this list elementary VFT?
> Of course we can have brief reminders, but these can be no substitute
> for  polished  published work.
> Perhaps we have different opinions about OPEL?
> Geert

____________________________

My point is simple. To get anywhere in this kind of a debate on such a forum we
need to follow the rule of chess. My point is that all the versions of Hegelian
interpretation of value problematic in Marx lead to dead end. The Hegelians like
you and others would of course deny it. So you make your first move and then I make
my counter move, and this way we may be able to see whether my claim is true or
false. That's why I have been picking up first moves (e.g. as Nikky pointed out
"the problem for theory is ...) and putting forward my counter move, but
unfortunately the next move is never coming forth from the other party. Cheers,
ajit sinha

>
>
> At 5/29/01Tuesday, you wrote:
>
> >nicola taylor wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ... i.e. the problem for theory is
> > > to establish how the social form of production for exchange *determines*
> > > the necessary (internal) interconnection of labour and value and of labour
> > > time and price.
> >
> >_____________________
> >
> >So how does it do it? As long as you don't tell us exatly how "the social form
> >of production for exchange [in capitalism--added] *determines* the necessary
> >(internal) interconnection of labour and value and of labour time and price."
> >How are we to understand what you are saying has any meaning or not.
> >Furthermore, we also need to know whether "labour" and "labour time" have the
> >same meaning above or different; and if different, what is the difference
> >between the two. Moreover, how do you define "value" and "prices" above?
> >Cheers, ajit sinha
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I see it, our differences on all other questions stem from these
> > > differences of interpretation and method.
> > >
> > > comradely
> > > Nicky
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------
> > > Nicola Mostyn (Taylor)
> > > Faculty of Economics
> > > Murdoch University
> > > Australia
> > > Telephone: 61-8-9385 1130



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]