[OPE-L:5711] Re: why are we on this list?

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Thu May 31 2001 - 21:27:03 EDT

Re Rakesh's [5710]:

> Jerry, that intent does not come across if your
> opponent is   characterized in the ridiculed form > of the black knight.

What you call ridicule might be better called a
sense of humor -- not such a bad trait for
Marxians to have.

> I disagee that much of benefit was derived from > five years of discussion
of the the putative
>  logical problems in chapter five and
> the alleged mistake of not thinking out the
> implications of the  value-use value dialectic.

Gil has contributed to discussions on more than
just Ch. 5 and Steve has contributed to discussions
on more than just the use-value of machinery.

It might be worthwhile noting, for instance, that
Gil is probably has the best understanding of
game-theory on the list (as well as being the
only active member from a Rational Choice
Marxism/Analytical Marxism perspective) and
Steve is probably better up-to-date than anyone
else on the list about chaos and complexity
theory as well as non-linear dynamic models
(including business cycle and financial models.)
These are not insignificant advantages for us.

> Gary did not respond to your or my
> questions about the methodology of comparative > statics.

So what? Maybe he didn't have time. Do you
expect other listmembers to jump whenever you
have a comment or question?

> I can't get
> anything out of Ajit's post because he now
> refuses to answer my
> responses since this would be a waste of his
> time.

Just a little while ago, in [5705], you wrote that
you 'learned'  from Ajit.

> I think they have effectively derailed what was
> supposed to be the
> point of this list--to extend Marx's unfinished
> project into a theory
> of the world market, the state, central bank
> policy, etc.

Don't place the blame on them.  Even if they
had never been on the list, I sincerely doubt that
we would have progressed any further towards
that goal -- which I have not given up on and
continue to raise, in one form or another, for
discussion.  We discuss what listmembers are
willing to discuss -- and they have been more
willing to discuss "Capital questions" to date
than "Extending Marx" questions.

This is not entirely a bad thing: my feeling is that
all of the issues that listmembers think are
important will eventually "come out in the wash"
so to speak -- i.e. they will eventually be
discussed.  Sure I'd like to see some issues
discussed earlier rather than later, but that's
up to us -- _all of us_, not just a few listmembers.

Perhaps the 102 degree heat has something
to do with your comments today. If you were
in New York now you'd be considerably cooler.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:09 EDT