[OPE-L:1616] Re: Lapides, etc.

Gerald Levy (glevy@pratt.edu)
Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:34:24 -0400 (EDT)

Re Kenneth's [OPE-L:1613]:

> <snip> Jerry takes me to task for not "confronting"
> the "main thrust" of his remarks, when he has ignored the fundamental
> theoretical issues I have raised about the character of Marx's wage
> theory.

I will, most probably, return later to your comments on "wage-labor" vs. a
"theory of wages" in Marx. However, I find it puzzling that you are
claiming that the current discussion is beginning to look like an
inquisition" when I simply highlighted how what you claimed to be the
conclusions about what the evidence "showed" were not supported by the
evidence that you cited. Thus, in [1598] I reproduced two separate quotes
from Marx and your statements that followed each quote. In both cases, it
can be seen that the statements that you made about what the quotes
"showed" can not be inferred from the quotes themselves. For a book
claiming to chronicle Marx's perspectives on wages, this is -- quite
frankly -- bad form. This is all the more puzzling since you seem to agree
that the "misuse of quotations" is an important issue (as, for example,
when you claim that Mike L did this in his S&S article).

You say elsewhere that the decision not to cite Mike L's S&S article in
your book was a "judgment call" that could have gone either way. You then

         "But I did not believe then nor do I believe now that there was
          any compelling reason for me to cite Lebowitz's 1993 remarks
          (certainly far more important texts were deleted from my
          bibliography to remain within the publisher's length

Unquestionably, there have been other significant works written on this
question and publisher's length requirements are a (in many ways,
unfortunate) reality that authors have to deal with. But, there was indeed
a *very* compelling reason for you to cite and respond to the ML 1993 S&S
article in your book: it represent a published critique of *your*
perspective. None of the other "important texts" on the "plans debate"
were *specifically* directed against your interpretation. Given the
controversy that this decision on your part has caused, you should
realize now that if it was a judgment call on your part it was a *bad*
judgment call.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:34 EST