[OPE-L:2175] Re: Depreciation: Seminar proposal

JERRY LEVY (jlevy@sescva.esc.edu)
Sun, 12 May 1996 17:37:56 -0700

[ show plain text ]

Re Alan's proposal on [OPE-L:2173]:

I support the proposal. My main concern, at this point, is simply whether
there is enough interest in a seminar on the topic of depreciation.

I, especially, favor the following three components of Alan's proposal
for a seminar on CAP-L:

(1) that the seminar last a definite amount of time announced in advance.
This, I believe, would help to structure the seminar.

(2) that the seminar initially be composed of those on OPE-L who wish to
participate and that each person could then invite a "couple of non-
OPE-L members." I believe this is important for the very simple
reason that list size would have to be kept moderate for it to
actually *be* a seminar -- which, traditionally, are kept relatively
I don't know if this is the "ideal" solution, but it does seem to me
to be an attempt to deal in a practical manner with a practical

(3) the proposal that, ultimately (at the close of the seminar?), the
materials be placed in the public domain. This would, in no way, affect
adversely the desire by some on OPE-L that *our* archives be kept
as is. It would, however, allow those interested in the seminar to
actually *publish* something since releasing the proceedings publicly
would constitute publishing.

I can't say that the topic of depreciation would have been my first choice
for a seminar. There are clearly many possible important topics
(e.g. fictitious capital and monetary crises; a dialogue among feminists
and Marxists on value theory; international trade theories and policies;
the internationalization of capital; debates on the theory of the
capitalist state; empirical work in value theory; the political economy
of socialism; ... perspectives on "extending Marx" and the 6-book-plan;
etc., etc., etc.). I can, however, agree with Alan that this would be
a good way to begin the seminar process and would allow us to evaluate
changes in future possible seminars.

As for making Alan's paper available, his suggestion for placing it on the
WWW is good, but it wouldn't help those who don't have access to the Web.
I have a very simple solution. I'll subscribe Alan to CAP-L and when he
finishes his paper, he can simply post on CAP-L. This would allow anyone
who joins the seminar later to get a copy with a simple "GET" message to
listproc. For instance, if Alan posted on June 1 to CAP-L, that would mean
that seminar participants could obtain a copy be sending a "GET CAP-L
960601" message to listproc (although, Alan would have to break-up his
paper into approximately 25K chunks and there would be "headers" in the
archives version).

I, in no way, see this proposal as something which is hostile to the
mission of OPE-L. Nor do I think that it will adversely affect our
discussions on this list. Instead, I see a seminar list (CAP-L) as
*complimentary* to our work.

What do others think?

In OPE-L Solidarity,