Re: [OPE-L] 'primitive' or 'original', etc.

[glevy@xxxxxxxxx]

> Jerry, the point I made was in a particular context.
> The context was the possible influence of the
> Physiocracy on Marx's theoretical framework in
> CAPITAL. Now the most original contribution of the
> Physiocrats (particularly Quesnay) was the notion of
> 'surplus'. It is also contended by many that the whole
> of political economy, including Marx's can be
> understood as a 'surplus approach economics'. Now, in
> that particular context, where the core of the theory
> revolves around the concept of 'surplus', it is a
> pertinent question to ask: what is surplus? Now you
> can legitimately ask all sorts of different questions
> such: as what is capitalism? or how all kinds of
> things relate to it. But I'm not interested in getting
> into such questions, definetely not on ope-l.

OK, Ajit.  You can discuss whatever you want to discuss and have
the time and energy to do. The problem, from the standpoint of
promoting discussion, is having a clear idea what is being discussed.
In this case, I think that our signals were crossed because of
your statement below about what you did _not_ want to discuss.
Of course we can discuss the Physiocratic influence on Marx (a
'Maxological' question) or a non-Marxological question -- so long
as we're both clear about whether we want to discuss Marx or
some other subject.  No one expects you or others to write
book on OPE-L.

In solidarity, Jerry


> Now I'm not interested in Marxological debate
> on this question. But I think a more interesting
> question from theoretical perspective would be to
> ask: what is surplus?