[OPE-L:7184] Re: a serious debate on Marx's value theory?

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 23:02:20 EDT

Perhaps some of the serious debate will happen over dinner and 
drinks, or in journals after these short exchanges. I have read 
Duncan's and Gary's respective criticisms of Kliman and Freeman, and 
they don't descend to the petty level that you did today. That is 
obviously why they are all still talking to each other.

>nclusions by L. Vasapollo
>Is this where we will observe the serious debate? 
>Note the following:
>The Conference is organized in such a way that the authors, together 
>with the scholars and the politicians invited, will provide an 
>answer to the following questions:
>1. Has Marx's transformation procedure been proven inconsistent?
>2. Is Bortkiewictz's interpretation of Marx's value theory Marx's own theory?
>3. Is it true that simultaneous valuation leads necessarily to an 
>interpretation of exploitation purely in physical terms? If this is 
>true, is this valuation compatible with Marx's theory of 
>exploitation in terms of surplus labour?
>4. Has Marx's theory of the tendential fall in the profit rate been disproved?
>It's really quite an amazing claim that "an answer" will be provided
>for the four above questions.  What of the answerS  provided by
>the "scholars and politicians"?  Is that to be part of "an answer"?

Jerry, you have obviously lost it; otherwise you would not be making 
such a big deal about the wording here.  Each author provides his 
answer to each question. What's the big deal?
Please consider stepping down.
Thank you, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT