IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ajit: > > > We seem to be held up on some points. I have asked > myself why and I think I now know the answer -- for > which I thank you. In this dialogue I sought to > first > define basic terms and make some simple stipulations > in the hope > that we could put "on the table" what we could > agree on before > moving to other topics. Thus, I have purposely > avoided > mentioning and explaining VALUE yet. I was > planning on getting > to that topic, of course, but not right away. I > thought, instead, > that we could approach in stages that subject by > first discussing > related topics (commodities, money, wage-labor, > etc.) so that > value could be grasped in relation to those topics. > > > > That's one thing but to deduce from it that all > the > > wealth owned by the capitalist is produced by > > wage-labor is wrong. Land is wealth and could be > owned > > by the capitalist but in no case is produced by > > wage-labor. > > > I agree with that: not all wealth is produced by > human labor > nor by wage-labor. Indeed, that's a point I have > made many > times on this list. The reason wanted to deal > initially with only > wealth produced by wage-labor is because I didn't > want at this > stage of my discussion with you to distinguish > wealth from > VALUE. I was quite aware of the (over-) > simplification that I > was making but made that (over-) simplification > anyway for the > purpose _only_ of discussion. I now see that was a > mistake. > Thanks. > > > I'll give your other comments some thought. But, > more > importantly, I'll have to re-think the sequence in > which the > propositions have been made and WHEN the subjects > that > will be more controversial related to labor and > value are > first presented. So, I'm not cutting-off the > exchange but rather > putting it temporarily on hold. I did say that we > would proceed > *slowly*, as you will recall. > > > In solidarity, Jerry ____________________ Perfectly fine with me. Take your time. ajit > ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
- Re: [OPE-L] Proposition #5, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] Proposition #5, ajit sinha Mon 12 Mar 2007, 20:00 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Proposition #5, Jerry Levy Tue 13 Mar 2007, 13:29 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Proposition #5, ajit sinha Tue 13 Mar 2007, 14:08 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Proposition #5, Jerry Levy Wed 14 Mar 2007, 14:50 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Proposition #5, ajit sinha Wed 14 Mar 2007, 15:03 GMT
- [OPE-L] Jean Baudrillard, 1929-2007, glevy Wed 07 Mar 2007, 16:10 GMT
- [OPE-L] Mamdani: The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency], Rakesh Bhandari Wed 07 Mar 2007, 04:55 GMT
- [OPE-L] Call for URPE Papers for 2008 ASSA Meeting, glevy Tue 06 Mar 2007, 23:06 GMT
- [OPE-L] Russian stock markets drop, Jerry Levy Tue 06 Mar 2007, 19:24 GMT