[OPE-L] a systematic exchange of perspectives

From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Mar 05 2007 - 09:35:22 EST

OK, Ajit.  I'm willing to engage you in this discussion but
I propose that we proceed as follows:

o  I'll initiate the exchange by posing a very simple proposition.

o  You can then agree or object.

o  Then I'll pose another proposition and you can agree or
     object, and so on.

o  If you object, you explain what is wrong with the proposition
    and I will respond.

o  Note that this does not take the form of  either one of us asking
    questions of the other.

o  We proceed slowly and deliberately (there's no rush, after
     all ....) dealing with one issue after another -- never more
    than one new point in any post.

o   No digressions.

o   No rhetoric.

o   No literary citations.

o  We then see how far we can get with this exchange.  Presumably,  at
    some point we won't agree, but it would be instructive to see what point
    that is and why.

o  When we disagree, we decide whether the disagreement is so major that
    we can't go forward until there's agreement (in which case the exchange
    is broken off) or we together decide to note a disagreement but proceed
    to the next step anyway.

[NB: the above would be a different -- a slower and more systematic --
exchange than that suggested by Fred, Diego, or others in the past.]

o  For the purposes of this exchange, I propose that although we can
   use arguments that have been developed by others, we not state who
   made those arguments  nor quote anyone (except each other's posts, of

I think that's a fair and workable procedure.  Do you agree?  If so,
then my next post in reply to you will state the first proposition.

In solidarity, Jerry

> What bothers me mostly is that in this sort of
> debates, the most fundamental questions are usually
> never posed. The question is: On what basis one can
> claim that "the so-called exchange-value is a
> necessary form of appearance of commodity value and
> that price is a necessary form of appearance of
> exchange-value." The question is not about who said
> what but what is the basis of establishing the claim
> made by whoever said it. Once you ask this question,
> only then you will begin to understand the problems
> associated with such claims.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT