Hi, Ajit. You may well disagree with me, but it can't possibly be on the
basis of the arguments you attribute to me below, because I don't make them.
Ajit writes:
>Though I have not read Postone's book under attack, I beg to disagree with
>Gil's basic point that methodological individualism is the only 'currect'
>way of reasoning, and all other kinds of reasoning only betray fallacies.
I never said or implied that "methodological individualism is the only
'correct' way of reasoning, and all other kinds of reasoning only betray
fallacies." I said applying value theory to the analysis of capitalist
production involves a specific error of logical type.
> I don't think it is improper to say that the goal of capitalism is to
>accumulate.
That's not the issue, except to note that attributing "goals" to
non-conscious entities is problematic. [ I note that Ajit uses the term
"goal" in a fundamentally different sense below, as something a conscious
entity might *want* to achieve other things equal, but can't given present
constraints.] Rather the issue is whether there are fundamental problems in
suggesting that *expansion of surplus value*, as the term is understood by
Marx, is the "goal of capitalism." I give specific reasons why this is
problematic.
It does not mean that the goal of the capitalist is to reinvest
>his/her profit. On the contrary, the goal of the capitalists may be to
>enjoy life. However, an average capitalist is incapable of doing so because
>the forces of competition would compell an average capitalist to
>continuously reinvest his/her profits.
Except for a slight reinterpretation on what is meant by "goal", this is
entirely consistent with what I wrote. Indeed, it reinforces it, since it
is precisely under the sort of conditions of competition Ajit speaks of that
the fallacy of division I attribute to Postone and Marx most clearly arises.
> The thrify nature of the capitalist
>is an effect of the structural causality of the system, rather than the
>cause of accumulation, as Gil would imply.
I would not imply it, and I certainly didn't say it.
I am completely puzzled by the interpretation Ajit puts on my comments.
They do not follow from what I said, and are not consistent with what I think.
Gil
