Date: Tue Sep 12 2006 - 08:39:22 EDT
> Jerry, the point I made was in a particular context. > The context was the possible influence of the > Physiocracy on Marx's theoretical framework in > CAPITAL. Now the most original contribution of the > Physiocrats (particularly Quesnay) was the notion of > 'surplus'. It is also contended by many that the whole > of political economy, including Marx's can be > understood as a 'surplus approach economics'. Now, in > that particular context, where the core of the theory > revolves around the concept of 'surplus', it is a > pertinent question to ask: what is surplus? Now you > can legitimately ask all sorts of different questions > such: as what is capitalism? or how all kinds of > things relate to it. But I'm not interested in getting > into such questions, definetely not on ope-l. OK, Ajit. You can discuss whatever you want to discuss and have the time and energy to do. The problem, from the standpoint of promoting discussion, is having a clear idea what is being discussed. In this case, I think that our signals were crossed because of your statement below about what you did _not_ want to discuss. Of course we can discuss the Physiocratic influence on Marx (a 'Maxological' question) or a non-Marxological question -- so long as we're both clear about whether we want to discuss Marx or some other subject. No one expects you or others to write book on OPE-L. In solidarity, Jerry > Now I'm not interested in Marxological debate > on this question. But I think a more interesting > question from theoretical perspective would be to > ask: what is surplus?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT