Re: (OPE-L) Ajit's paper

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 08:06:44 EDT

> >>  >______________
> >>  >As I said, "money commodity". But this is not
> the
> >>  >issue we are discussing here. Let's keep to the
> >>  issue.
> >>  >Cheers, ajit sinha
> >>
> >>  Ajit, this won't do.
> >_________________
> >
> >Yes, Rakesh! It will have to do.
> Ajit,
> But it doesn't.  Surely an expert such as yourself
> should be able to
> point without any difficulty to the exact
> incoherency or mistake that
> I made in my post which you could not even get
> yourself to reproduce,
> much less parse. Surely a real expert wouldn't
> descend into the level
> of play-yard taunting if he had adequate answers.
> But you don't.
Rakesh, First of all, I'm no expert and I'm not sharp
enough to "parse" through your incoherency. You must
understand that I don't have so much of time to talk
about everything under the sun and keep pointing out
where are the incoherency in your pages and pages of
incoherency. And I was not taunting you at all. I was
and I'm sincerely telling you that your understanding
of value theory and other related matters are highly
incoherent. I would suggest that you read little less
and think through the issues yourself. I also think
that you read a lot of incoherent stuff. It will help
you, if you cut down on them. This is not to say that
my position is the correct one and yours is the wrong
one. Even if my position was the wrong one, and you
are in the right direction, I think most of the people
will agree that my position is at least clear and
understandable, but yours is not.
> It must be very disheartening not to enjoy easy
> superiority in your
> field of expertise over someone who has read on his
> own the
> respective and contesting contributions of Sinha and
> Naples, and came
> to his own conclusions which are much closer to
> Naples', Moseley's
> and Peach's than yours.

Rakesh, I'm only trying to help you by being candid
with you. I have no desire to feel superior to you in
any respect. The names you keep throwing at me have no
meaning to me.
> As for your infinite regression criticism, made in
> reply to Ian,
> surely someone who knew the literature would know
> that Freeman and
> Carchedi have already spoken to it, and would have
> thus taken that
> into account in your reply.

Of course, I don't know the literature. Certain kinds
of literature I have no time for. Everybody needs to
find their level and go with it.
> Now if you want to tell for my own good what you
> think is incoherent
> in Marx's value theory, just state it. And state it
> clearly.

Here is one example of your incoherency. I'm talking
about the pages and pages of your incoherency and you
simply and sooooo innocently assume that of course all
that was Marx's value theory, so my charge of
incoherency in your writing has to be a charge of
incoherency in Marx's value theory. Do you sometime
forget your name, and like to be called Karl?
 Or give
> me the page numbers in one of your own pieces where
> you have stated
> it.  And I shall either respond myself or tell you
> where in the
> literature a response has been formulated.
You can respond to my critique in Westra et al. And
please don't give me your list of literature. If you
can argue yourself, you are welcome. My sense is that
the people you follow are not much clearer than you
> >  To be very frank with
> >you, most of the stuff you write on very basic
> issues
> >is incoherent.
> Incoherent is not synomous with that which I do not
> agree.
No. It is simply incoherent. And I'm surprised that
you don't recognize it. May be you never read what you
> >  Political economy is not your area of
> >specialization is clear as day light to all.
> Yes, I endeavor to understand not political economy
> but the critique
> of political economy. And I don't think your
> understanding of Marx is
> very good.
May be it is not good, but at least it is not
For example you have totally mis
> understood the first part
> of Capital--note that you have never answered my
> question of what we
> are to make of Marx's analysis of the peculiarities
> of the equivalent
> form or "ideal genesis" of the money form.
Please tell us what is the peculiarities of the
equivalent form or "ideal genesis" of the money form?
and why do we have to make of anything of this?
 If you
> can't answer that,
> how can you claim to understand the so called
> problematic of part I.
> Althusser led you astray.  Godelier did not follow
> Althusser here.
> While even Lipietz recognized that Althusser was
> wrong, you
> nonetheless stuck with the mis interpretation.
For the starter, my critique of first part of capital
one is quite different from Althusser's. So that's how
much you understand. And I, at least, have put forward
an analysis that is coherent.
> And on another one of your arguments: If you want to
> restate your
> criticism of how Marx theorizes labor power as a
> commodity, I shall
> show here that you have mis read Marx on this count
> too.
I don't want to restate anything. Since you have read
it, why don't you state it. Then I'll show you how
poorly you have understood it, and how hollow your
critique is.
> You may have mastery over Sraffa in relation to GET,
> but I don't
> think your understanding of Marx is  very profound.
> It's probably the
> first that has led to the second.
I don't claim mastery over anything. And my
understanding of Marx may not be "profound" but at
least it is not mumbo-jumbo.
> >This is
> >not to say that you should not debate such issues,
> but
> >please don't pretend to be all knowing on these
> >subjects.
> Why don't you just pretend to have an answer to what
> I wrote.
There is no answer to Gibberish, Rakesh!
> >  Right now I neither have time nor
> >inclination to debate you on complicated issues
> >regarding Malthus, Ricardo, Sraffa and the problem
> of
> >'invariable measure of value'.
> In other words, you don't have an answer to the
> challenge Naples made
> long ago, and I just elaborated.

I don't know what Naples wrote long ago. But I'll
welcome Naples to debate me on Sraffa, Marx,
invariable measure of value, etc.
 You are blindsided
> by what I am
> saying only because you had never thought through
> what Naples had
> already said. You think what I am saying comes from
> the world of non
> expertise only because you ignore or don't try to
> understand experts
> with whom you don't agree.  In fact I don't think
> you ever cite her
> in your own work on value. At least you have said
> nothing substantive
> about her work.

If she has criticised my position anywhere, then
please let me know. I'll see and respond if I think it
needs a response.
> >  So please stick to Marx
> >and his concept of value. And I would appreciate if
> >you gave me straightforward answers to
> straightforward
> >questions.
> I have answered your questions. How is abstract
> labor time measured:
> it cannot be measured directly but in money though
> monetary
> measurement tends to represent it. How do I know
> that prices tend to
> be above value in high OCC branches and vice versa
> in low OCC
> branches. Because such a theory of how prices are
> formed and value is
> distributed leads to novel predictions about how low
> OCC branches can
=== message truncated ===
This speaks for itself. Cheers, ajit sinha

Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT