Re: [OPE-L] essentials and scope

[Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

Ajit and Howard:

OK, Ajit.  Thanks for your re-cap and narrative.  I agree that we
should stick to one question at a time.  Let's stick to the
question: is money an *essential* aspect of
capitalism?  (it's not that I am "more comfortable
with" the concept of essential; rather, it's that I am more
comfortable having a *cross-paradigm discussion* over
that topic.)

Let me ask you a direct 'yes or no' question:

-- is money essential to capitalism?

If you answer that question 'yes' then that will lead us in
one direction of discussion; if you answer it 'no' then
it will lead us in another direction.

It should be clear, on the basis of other posts, that I would
answer that question with a 'yes'.

(Ajit: skip the following please.)
----------------------------------------------------------

Howard:

I agree that "essential" ands "essence" are not the same.

My reference to "inner nature"  -- which Ajit took exception
to -- was in relation to the issue of *scope*.  I.e. in
a previous post, I claimed that the scope of an analysis
depends upon both the "inner nature" of the subject and
the "purpose" of the analysis (and went on to quip that
"scope follows function").   You will remember that this
reference arose out of our exchange about the 6-book-plan.
As I suggested,  one's perspective on the "scope" of Marx's
analysis is thus related to what he sought  to accomplish: hence
if you view him as an 'economist'  whose main purpose
was to critique economic theory then one tends to view  that
question in a certain way than if you sees Marx and his purpose
in another way.

In solidarity, Jerry