[ show plain text ]
...though Luxemburg actually thought there WERE inconsistencies in Marx's
thought!
r.b.
P.S.: should I take these passages from Andrew as implying that the sooner
the opponents to TSS die the sooner the light will shine on younger Marxist
minds?
At 14:43 +0100 28-04-2000, Paul Zarembka wrote:
>Andrew,
>
>May I apply your wording to Luxemburg's _Accumulation of Capital_ (more
>ignored on this list than TSS), rather than to TSS?
>
>:)
>
>Paul Z.
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:51:27 -0400
>From: Andrew_Kliman <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com>
>Subject: [OPE-L:2919] Need 1
>
> ... But the danger is that the disinterested reader, seeing
>that a debate is ongoing, will wrongly take this as evidence that the
>issues have not been decisively resolved. Perhaps s/he will even
>conclude that "the truth is somewhere in the middle," in other words that
>Marx's theory is riven with internal inconsistencies. To head off such a
>reaction, I want to say two things to the disinterested reader. First,
>the fact that the opponents of the temporal single-system (TSS)
>interpretation of Marx's value theory are not and will not be persuaded
>has no bearing upon whether it is correct. Second, the reason its
>opponents keep arguing and resisting is that they refuse to accept
>genuinely empirical criteria in order to decide whether an interpretation
>is correct or not.
>
>That people oppose a new truth even after it has been demonstrated is far
>from uncommon. The _New York Times_ (March 11, 2000, p. A1) recently
>reported that a nationwide poll in the U.S. found that "almost half the
>respondents agreed that the theory [of evolution] 'is far from being
>proven scientifically'." But this is not only, or even especially, a
>problem among the uninformed public. The greatest resistance to new
>truths comes from the experts. IT IS THE EXPERTS WHO HAVE A STAKE IN AND
>COMMITMENT TO THE OLD IDEAS, AND THEY WHO HAVE THE MOST DIFFICULTY IN
>BREAKING FREE FROM THEIR ACCUSTOMED CATEGORIES AND WAYS OF THINKING.
>
>Max Planck (1949:33-34), who developed quantum field theory, complained
>that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
>and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
>eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
>The historical record provides ample evidence of this. Kuhn
>(1970:150-51) notes that "Copernicanism made few converts for almost a
>century after Copernicus' death. Newton's work was not generally
>accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century
>after the _Principia_ appeared. Priestly never accepted the oxygen
>theory, nor Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on."
Riccardo Bellofiore
Office: Department of Economics
Piazza Rosate, 2
I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
Home: Via Massena, 51
I-10128 Torino, Italy
e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
+39 035 277501 (dept. secr.)
+39 011 5819619 (home)
fax: +39 035 249975
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:45 EDT