[OPE-L] Please take me off the list-Re: [OPE-L] who's responding to whom

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2006 - 16:42:22 EST

--- Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> wrote:

> I know there have been many loud proclamations about
> how my posts
> should be sent to the junk box and pleas that I
> should be ignored.
> But we see a clear movement here from an incorrect
> interpretation of
> Marx's argument to a better one; and in that gap
> there were my
> putatively ignored posts challenging the flawed
> original formulations.
Jerry, Please take me off the list. I do not know how
to do this myself. I know I could send this mail
privately to you. But I think it is other members
right to know why I have left the list. I have been
stocked and harassed by this individual named Rakesh
Bhandari and after years of putting up with it, I
recently made it public as I saw he had started to do
the same to you. Now it is clear to me that this guy
is preparing grounds to accuse me of plagiarism, as he
has already done with others. As you know I'm writing
a book, which is important to me and I cannot take
chances. I used to think that the guy is just an idiot
who simply does not understand arguments--as his
evidence of myself correcting my position in the face
of his criticisms or other postings will show to any
one who is knowledgeable about classical political
economy. But it is not just that. It is becoming clear
to me that he is on some mission. He belongs to a
group of people who are carrying out a vendetta
against me and, as you know, putting up
unsubstantiated allegations against me in public
forums. I have a feeling that they also want to bring
this list down--he is just a solder. I can see that he
has not changed his behavior one bit after being
allowed back on the list. Now, what the list does with
him is not my problem. I simply cannot take it
anymore, so I'm getting out. Now I'm on no electronic
list--sometimes I'll miss it but at least one will not
have to deal with Bhandaries of the cyber world, and
that will be a relief. Thanks to others for some good
discussions over the years. Cheers, ajit sinha
> So let's look at this exchange:
> >
> >
> >Ajit wrote:
> >
> >>Now, the proposition
> >>Marx is making is not that empirically profits and
> >>surplus labor are observed to go together but
> rather
> >>the *cause* of profit lies in surplus labor. This
> >>proposition is simply asserted but never proved by
> >>Marx.
> >
> >
> >Again this is not what Marx intended to do as any
> reading of the
> >first six chapters of
> >Capital I should make clear. Marx *deduces* that
> *cause*; he does not
> >directly prove it or assert it!
> >If value regulates price, then the difference in
> the monetary
> >expression of C' and C in the circuit of capital
> (M-C-P-C'-M')  must
> >have resulted the appropriation of unpaid labor
> time.
> Then Ajit later submitted this correction of his
> view a few days later:
> >  Before Marx no political economist had a good
> >theory of profit (except for taking surplus as gift
> of
> >nature). It is Marx's great originality that he
> tries
> >to develop a proper theory of profit determination
> (an
> >originality for which Marx is not given proper
> credit
> >because of Marx influenced reading of Ricardo). Now
> to
> >do so, Marx first develops a so-called theory of
> value
> >where commodities are supposed to exchange
> according
> >to their labor content. From this proposition he
> >derives a particular exchange relation of real
> wages
> >with labor-power and discovers the source of
> surplus
> >production in surplus labor. Then this surplus
> labor
> >so derived from the equal value exchange
> proposition
> >is used to develop the rate of profit.
> And even before this correction, I had already
> submitted this
> implicit challenge to Ajit's understanding of the
> logic of Marx's
> argument upon readmission to this list.
> >Please let us remember that Marx did not derive the
> labor theory of
> >value from his explanation of
> >surplus value, defined as M'-M. In that sense
> surplus value was
> >recognized long before Marx; the question of course
> is whether it was
> >buried by neoclassical economics as Joan Robinson
> complained often
> >and vociferously.
> >
> >  Marx's explanation of the persistence of the
> surplus value value
> >presupposes the labor theory of value, for on that
> basis--as well as
> >Gil's favorite assumption of price value
> equivalence--Marx reasons
> >that capital considered here as a perfect aliquot
> of the whole cannot
> >have paid for labor time actually expended.
> >
> >What did it then purchase--the worker's ability to
> perform labor...We
> >all know the story...If the labor theory of value
> is true, then that
> >ability must have a lesser value than the value
> added by expenditure
> >of labor. And indeed input output analysis confirms
> that as true--as
> >even the critic Meghnad Desai himself underlines.
> Of course that does
> >not resolve the question of exploitation because
> the wage could
> >represent full payment for labor performed,
> discounted in terms of
> >labor's present time preference.  The problem here
> is a fetishization
> >of time which is of course better than its
> elimination.

Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST