[OPE-L:5711] Re: why are we on this list?

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re Rakesh's [5710]:

> Jerry, that intent does not come across if your
> opponent is   characterized in the ridiculed form > of the black knight.

What you call ridicule might be better called a
sense of humor -- not such a bad trait for
Marxians to have.

> I disagee that much of benefit was derived from > five years of discussion
of the the putative
>  logical problems in chapter five and
> the alleged mistake of not thinking out the
> implications of the  value-use value dialectic.

Gil has contributed to discussions on more than
just Ch. 5 and Steve has contributed to discussions
on more than just the use-value of machinery.

It might be worthwhile noting, for instance, that
Gil is probably has the best understanding of
game-theory on the list (as well as being the
only active member from a Rational Choice
Marxism/Analytical Marxism perspective) and
Steve is probably better up-to-date than anyone
else on the list about chaos and complexity
theory as well as non-linear dynamic models
(including business cycle and financial models.)
These are not insignificant advantages for us.

> Gary did not respond to your or my
> questions about the methodology of comparative > statics.

So what? Maybe he didn't have time. Do you
expect other listmembers to jump whenever you
have a comment or question?

> I can't get
> anything out of Ajit's post because he now
> refuses to answer my
> responses since this would be a waste of his
> time.

Just a little while ago, in [5705], you wrote that
you 'learned'  from Ajit.

> I think they have effectively derailed what was
> supposed to be the
> point of this list--to extend Marx's unfinished
> project into a theory
> of the world market, the state, central bank
> policy, etc.

Don't place the blame on them.  Even if they
had never been on the list, I sincerely doubt that
we would have progressed any further towards
that goal -- which I have not given up on and
continue to raise, in one form or another, for
discussion.  We discuss what listmembers are
willing to discuss -- and they have been more
willing to discuss "Capital questions" to date
than "Extending Marx" questions.

This is not entirely a bad thing: my feeling is that
all of the issues that listmembers think are
important will eventually "come out in the wash"
so to speak -- i.e. they will eventually be
discussed.  Sure I'd like to see some issues
discussed earlier rather than later, but that's
up to us -- _all of us_, not just a few listmembers.

Perhaps the 102 degree heat has something
to do with your comments today. If you were
in New York now you'd be considerably cooler.

In solidarity, Jerry