[OPE-L:6319] Re: Historical, real and current costs

Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:31:37

Re the PIAF:

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:29:28 -0500 (est)
> From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L] Re: Historical, real and current costs

Jerry writes:

> Someone notified me today that s/he unsubscribed from OPE-L because
> s/he was sick of Andrews "method of argument." Hopefully, s/he will
> change her/his mind and return shortly.

This is really bad news. I also hope that s/he will come back to the
list shortly. One of the important things about ope-l is that one can
listen different voices.

But I want to say something about this. I agree that, sometimes,
Andrew has a non-polite style of discussing but I also think that
this could be a reaction because he may be feeling that his arguments
are not being considered seriously, in a relaxed atmosphere.

I think the present example shows us this.

Jerry wrote, re some Andrew''s post:

"Since no direct or indirect labour is being performed on the
widgets after 5 p.m, you are asserting that the additional value
created after working time was created by *nature* (the Sun in

I ask Jerry: Do you really think that Andrew was *asserting* that? Do
you really think that Andrew holds an interpretation of Marx''s theory
in which the Sun *creates* value?

I mean, one can agree or not with Andrew, but it seems clear to me
that he has devoted an enormous effort to study Marx''s theory, and
certainly is difficult to think that he''s holding an interpretation
in which "the Sun creates value". Andrew has studied Capital and
other Marx''s books for 15 or 20 years (I don''t know exactly),
published several articles on these topics, and written hundred of
posts for ope-l, many of them very stimulating. This is, of course,
also the case of many people on the list. So, I think, that if
someone as Andrew writes something that *might* imply that "the Sun
creates value", one cannot simply say that *s/he is asserting* that.
Maybe his/her phrasing is not clear enough, but such a big mistake is
difficult to imagine having as "speaker" people like Andrew, Mike
W, David L, Duncan F, Fred M, Alan F, Ajit S, Bruce R, Paul C, Allin
C, John E., etc. And I say this because the first reaction I had with
Andrew''s post was precisely that Jerry had, but I gave a "second
thought" to the thing. As Mike W. put this in a funny way some days
ago: "Andrew is not silly".

I also think that Andrew''s examples are, despite appearances, very
complicated and need much clarification. Many times he also assumes
that people are working in his framework, which almost always is a
false assumption. But one of the aims of the list could be,
precisely, to make this work of clarification, insofar as we are
able to preserve an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Hope this cloud will go soon!

Alejandro Ramos