[OPE-L:5558] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: William ofOckam'sRazor and Political Economy

From: Ajit Sinha (ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in)
Date: Sun May 13 2001 - 06:57:32 EDT

Jerry, I'm not interested in non-issues, which you seem to be a champion of. I
have never referred to this interpretation as "traditional", check my original
mail. It is a label that Rakesh attributed to me off his hat. I did not say
anything about it because I did not want to vitiate the issue to a non-issue
about what is traditional or not. My original mail was in response to somebody
(whose name I cannot recall right now) who in my opinion was coming from
Marxist-Hegelian position. What Rakesh is or is not is not my problem. He is
interested in continuing this debate, either to convince me that I'm wrong,
which he has a very little chance of, or trying to clarify his own
understanding of the issues involved by arguing against me. So we are carrying
on. If you are interested, comment on the issues involved. One could claim
oneself an Hegelian without knowing much of Hegel, so I don't give much
credence to label-shable that people put on themselves. Cheers, ajit sinha

ps. As far as authors I have taken on on this score, all you need to do is to
read my articles in *Research in Political Economy* vol. 12, 1990, and vol.
15, 1996.

'The Cocept of Value in Marx: A Reinterpretation'
'A Critique of Part one of *Capital* vol. one: The Value Controvery Revisited'

Gerald_A_Levy wrote:

> Re Ajit's [5556]:
> I'm not sure *whom* you are really taking issue
> with.  I thought I knew when you referred in the
> original [5553] to the 'traditional interpretation'.
> Yet, in this post you seem to take issue with
> Rakesh's perspective which you imply is 'Marxist-
> Hegelian' and  value-form theory (VFT). However,
> Rakesh is not a Heglian by any stretch of the
> imagination and he has indeed authored long
> anti-Hegel(ian)  posts on this list (he thinks that Marx's methodology has
> more in common with
> Aristotle than Marx.)  And, VFT (which RB is
> certainly not part of) can in no meaningful sense be
> identified as 'traditional'.  Consequently, I have a
> basic, straight-forward and  simple question which
> I  trust can be answered simply:  what authors (and
> writings?) have put forward the 'traditional
> interpretation' that you are  taking issue with?
> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT