[ show plain text ]
"Andrew_Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com> said, on 05/01/00 at 02:52
PM:
>As bad as you think the treatment of RL was, the treatment of the TSS
>interpretation has been much worse. Note that RL's critics *sought* to
>answer her, and *in print*. That allows readers to know about the
>existence of her work, and allows them to form their own estimation of
>the arguments, as you are doing even today.
It is not comparable. She was a VERY MAJOR figure in movement and could
not be just ignored with no acknowledgement that she had written anything
on the theory of accumulation.
>What happened to the TSS interpretation was that discovery after
>discovery was ignored, brushed aside with offhand *verbal* remarks, or --
>finally, finally -- discussed on a PRIVATE e-mail list. Its opponents
>have in the main tried mightily to keep from having a public debate. When
>acting as journal referees, they haven't encouraged publication of TSS
>work together with their criticisms. Instead, they make private
>criticisms, which they use to reject the publication of TSS work. And
>because they keep the criticisms private, this hinders our ability to
>respond to and refute them. It is a very dirty business.
Well, as you have acknowledged on this list, you are getting exposure in
*Research in Political Economy*.
>In my reply I was trying to guess at what you meant by "May I apply your
>wording to Luxemburg's _Accumulation of Capital_ ... rather than to TSS?"
>and to answer the question. After reading your response to me, I still
>do not understand what you meant by the question. Could you please
>clarify?
I'm not even sure any more. It really was a "smiley" at the beginning,
having felt that what you wrote worked for what Luxemburg's work has been
through.
>Paul wrote:
>: Perhaps I could clarify by saying that the problem is the LACK of
>: definition of "accumulation of capital" in Marx (unlike many other
>: concepts he introduced for the first time).
>That much I understood. What I don't understand is what is the
>definitional *problem*. In other words, say that I agree there's a lack
>of a definition. So what?
I don't usually answer a question with a question, but do you care about
the definitions in Marx of mode of production, relations of production,
productive forces, value, surplus value, constant capital, variable
capital, production of absolute surplus value, production of relative
surplus value, rate of profit? Sometimes Marx even uses the exact phrase
that he is *defining* something. If you don't care, I don't know what to
say, and probably going on to the next won't accomplish anything.
>Paul wrote:
>: The refutations of the "notion that demand for means of production
>cannot ultimately outstrip demand for consumer goods", i.e., demand for
>means of production can ultimately outstrip demand for consumer goods,
>are NOT accepted in my paper. I try to go one-by-one through these
>arguments ...
>Yes, but I didn't understand your answers. What seems to be going on is
>that you don't accept the *realism* of the demonstrations; you want
>additional restrictions to be imposed. So perhaps we can get to the
>heart of the matter thus: WHAT *WOULD* YOU ACCEPT AS A DEMONSTRATION
>THAT DEMAND FOR MEANS OF PRODUCTION CAN ULTIMATELY OUTSTRIP DEMAND FOR
>CONSUMER GOODS? If you specify the restrictions you that require, I'll
>try to show that the result can hold under these restrictions. I'm
>confident I can do so given a reasonable set of restrictions.
I'm lost. What do "realism" of demonstrations mean? What "restrictions"
(by Luxemburg or myself)?
Paul Z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EDT