Exemplary exchange

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I was struck by the exemplary nature of the exchange between Gil Skillman
and Jim Devine which concisely indicated areas of considerable
disagreement, but without any risk of flame wars.

Far from obscuring differences, etiquette helps to concentrate on the
issues. In this brief exchange both sides left me willing to revisit the
debate when time permits, and consider their arguments *on the merits*.

Obviously coded words were used to indicate that the disagreement is deep,
but concentrating on content reduces, rather than increases, the risk of
flame wars. Such was the case here.


Chris Burford

London


At 17:58 14/12/00 -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
> At 07:27 PM 12/14/00 -0500, you wrote:
> > Hello Jim,
>
> Hi Gil!
>
> > I was trolling through the Web when I came across this blurb from you
> > extolling a new book, From Capitalism to Inequality:
> >
> > "Chapter three ... is crystal-clear. If we'd read this chapter
> >                    beforehand, the famous PEN-L debate with Gil Skillman
> > over
> >                    volume I of Capital would not have happened."?Jim Devine
> >
> > Intrigued (and pleased to hear that the debate is "famous"), I shelled out
> > the $20 to order a copy and waited anxiously to receive it.  But when I got
> > the book and read Chapter 3, I found only a rehash of the very same
> > arguments in Capital that I had been criticizing as logically incoherent,
> > with no attempt at all to come to grips with that criticism.
>
> I disagree that Marx's arguments were incoherent, though it is pointless
> to explain why at this point.
>
> > Indeed, the
> > rehash in this book had much less nuance than Marx's original argument, so
> > it's very hard for me to see how the "crystal-clear" analysis you extol in
> > Chapter 3 would have obviated the debate.  Could you please direct me to
> > the points in the chapter that you believe successfully anticipate and
> > address my argument?
>
> I think that there are some basic methodological disagreements between us
> that prevent our agreement on this issue.
>
> I thought that Andrews' book had a very clear explanation of Marx's
> presentation, but unfortunately that assumes that you understand Marx's
> method of presentation in CAPITAL and accept his entire method of analysis
> of capitalism. Since Andrews doesn't explain it, I think Bertell Ollman's
> ALIENATION presents a good discussion of Marx's method. Of course, he's
> not the only one.
>
>
> Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine