Re: [OPE-L] the long and the short of it

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Sep 14 2006 - 06:01:28 EDT

--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote:

> >  By the
> > way, how do you know that "Well, if the subject is
> > capitalism, then-- for instance -- money is an
> > essential aspect of that subject"?
> Ajit:
> The central and essential importance of money to the
> subject of  capitalism is evident from the fact that
> products tend to be produced as commodities in that
> mode of production.
So according to you, most of the greatest economists
of all times, starting from Adam Smith and Ricardo
down to Walras, Pareto, Marshall, Debreu and Sraffa
I'm leaving the living ones out) were all idiots who
did not know the fact that products tend to be
produced as commodities in the capitalist mode of
production? Sraffa went as far as entitling his book
as production of commodities by means of commodities
but still was such an idiot that he could not see the
evident fact that products are produced as commodites?
Think for yourself how childish your response is.
> > Does this essence
> > of your subject dance around in the street or you
> have
> > used some method of analysis to discover it?
> Well, yes, to the extent that commodities and money
> are
> necessarily linked, it can dance in the street.  No
> need
> to "discover" its immediate importance -- every
> child  in
> a capitalist society comes to understand on some
> level the
> essential role of money.
Observe yourself how you are dancing around now! You
had called money to be "essential", now you say "no
need to discover its immediate importance". Is
"Immediate importance" equivalent to being
"essenctial"? Again, notice yourself how quickly you
have contradicted yourself. Earlier you had said, "it
[i.e. I did] conflates topics associated
with an understanding of capitalism in general and
topics which are associated with conjunctural analyses
of specific social formations." Does your money above
dance in the street of capitalism in general or some
contingent capitalist formation? You have moved from
your claim to an abstract object of knowledge to a
claim to an observation of a contingent impirical
fact--this observation apparently turns out to be your
"method" for determinig the so-called "essence" and
you don't seem to be aware of it. By the way, If I
were you I'll not believe in whatever children seem to
know--most of what they know is crap! Cheers, ajit

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT