From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 06:37:00 EDT
> First of all - science do not develop by consensus.
Hi Anders:
Never said it did, but there tends to be in any science an assessment
which eventually gains wide support among practioners. As new theories
are presented they are critiqued and out of those critical evaluations
often comes something _like_ consensus. The TSSI perspective has, among
Marxians, been the one perspective since the early 1990's which has been
most widely critiqued by other Marxians. Out of those critiques - which
have been presented over the course of the last 15 years of so - has come
a general, widely accepted critical perspective. (btw, you will recall
that I wrote previously that I thought there was "close to" consensus
among Marxians outside of the TSSI perspective. I never asserted that
_everyone_ outside of the TSSI perspective would agree on the meaning of
Kliman's methodology).
> I am a little
> surprised by your effort to have a "vote" on this.
I am a little surprised by this remark since I explicitly said that I was
_not_ proposing a vote.
> When it comes to what perspective will gain/lose support my guess is
> that the attitude of the TSSI, will gain support.
I think enough time has passed to know that will not be the case. A major
reason for that is that other advocates of the TSSI have allowed Kliman to
_define_ TSS and _limit the scope_ of that perspective. For them to gain
support (and interest), they must decisively break from the narrow focus
on hermeneutics ("the myth of internal inconsistency" in Marx) and extend
the research focus.
> The sterility - and falling apart of "analytical Marxism" is by now
> clear.
Ah! So you think there is a consensus that is "by now clear"?
Well, maybe. I think most Marxians now have much greater clarity and
agreement about the sterility of the Kliman-Freeman perspective.
> That nobody has still managed to formulate a complete
> alternative based on a fundamental dynamic view of the economy is
> also obvious - and to do so is the research agenda I - and
> increasingly more of us have.
That's a very worthwhile research objective. If more advocates of the
TSSI were to support that position and break out of the sterile discussion
of the "myth of internal inconsistency" and other hermeneutic issues
concerning Marx then that research agenda could move forward. I used to
think that the TSS supporters would move in this direction but many years
have passed and it has become clear to just about all that is not the
focus of the TSSI . The very expression "TSSI" reflects the extent to
which Kliman's perspective has taken over the TSS school: he has been
successful in _defining_ TSS as a field of inquiry narrowly focused on
interpretations of Marx.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT