Jerry:
Let me start by saying that I somewhat regret the tone of my previous
post to Ajit ("what hypocrisy") on this topic. I communicated this
apology to Ajit privately previously.
__________________________
No apology needed. We are all Mates (it sounds like Maites), and a bit of anger
and name calling is part of life.
_____________________________
I have no doubt that Ajit can be able to bring much to our discussion of
Marx's value theory and its relation to the Steedman and Sraffian
critique of Marx. That said, I have a number of reservations:
___________________________
I would keep Steedman out. He is a contentious name and writes in a bit of
anti-Marxist tone. And I'm not presenting a "critique" of Marx. I'm trying to
present a "good", as opposed to a "bad"--a lot of which is out there,
interpretation of it.
__________________________
1) The source of this particular exchange was the claim by Ajit,
responding to Devine, that Marx's "approach" is not important for
understanding the "transformation problem." I continue to believe that
this IS a very weak position which IS a double-standard. Since Ajit has
written his dissertation on Marx and value, I would assume that he knows
that Marx's method MUST be understood for one to understand his critique
of political economy.
___________________________
I never said that "Marx's approach is not important for understanding the
transformation problem". I couln't say a thing like that even in my dream. Here
is an example of "bad" interpretation.
__________________________
2) Ajit implies that he was personally offended by my remarks. If he
believes that words like "hypocrisy" have no place in this debate, why
does he make the absurd assertion that my understanding is based on
"third grade" or "at best second grade secondary literature"? Putting
aside the question that the third grade follows the second grade, Ajit
has offered no reasons for this claim or the further claim that I "didn't
say anything of substance." Perhaps Ajit simply doesn't agree with the
substance that I have written concerning this topic.
_____________________________
I still maintain that you have not said anything of substance yet. The kind of
literature Jim Devine wants to hit me on the head with, I generally call third
grade or second grade litersture at best. It has to do with one's subjective
ranking. For example, Woody Allen calls his movies second grade, which tells me
that he knows "good films". Your arguments seem to be coming from the similar
litersture Jim Devine talks about.
_______________________________
3) As for my "credentials", I am not going to defend them to Ajit or this
list. I am quite familiar -- perhaps TOO familiar -- with the literature
on the "transformation problem." Ajit's response reminds me of certain
senior faculty members who, cornered by logic, respond to junior faculty
members thusly: "Do you know how many years I have taught at blank? Do
you know who I am or how powerful I am?", etc. I have never been
impressed by this form of "logic."
_______________________________
Well, I'm neither a "senior" faculty member nor a powerful man. But thanks for
thinking of me that way :-)
_______________________________
4) Ajit asserts that my approach is a "convoluted neo-classical one."
This sounds like the last words of a drowning Sraffian. Perhaps Ajit
will care to expand on this theme using my previous posts as a basis for
the alleged neo-classicism. I would be very interested in hearing about
my "neoclassical" approach.
______________________________
Well, I'm waiting for you to say something of substance. I have a general sense
of what kind of literature you are coming from. So when you would come out with
your thesis, we would see who would be "drowning". Or perhaps you could leave
it to Jim Devine to fight your battle. Since both of you seem to belong to the
same sect.
_____________________________
5) Perhaps we can all agree that the "transformation problem" should
concern a clash of ideas and methodologies rather than personalities.
Would Ajit agree also?>
______________________________
Sure! But is this kind of separation dialectical?
Cheers, ajit sinha
