From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 05:05:45 EST
Riccardo, I think the only way to intelectually deal with TSS folks is to completely ignore them--otherwise it will be nothing but simple waste of energy. My best, ajit --- Riccardo Bellofiore <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT> wrote: > Hi Jerry, > > my answer would be: > > (i) yes, Ernesto's paper are "lies", since - in my > opinion - his > interpretation of Matx is unwarranted and wrong > > (ii) no, they are not "damned lies", an expression > of criticism on > which TSS people has specialized, and that add > nothing to the issues > debated > > (iii) in sum, Ernesto's attitude towards Marx is the > right one, a > critical attitude, against which it is legitimate to > argue against; > what cannot be accepted is that there are critics > who pretend they > have the Marx's interpretation. > > About the Rome conference, as probably I told you at > the time, I > received more or lessa month before a short mail by > Andrew Kliman, > the content was: "will you come to the Rome > conference where your > interpretation of Marx will be destroyed?". > > I answered: Andrew, I cannot come to a conference I > don't know it > exists, and at which I have not been invited in > advance, and that I > don't even know it exists (note: of course Foley and > Mongiovi etc. > must have been alerted much before). I received a > kind of circular > letter some days after by Vasapollo of the > Laboratorio, with the date > fixed, inviting all those who wanted to come. I had > exams, defined > some weeks before, and I could not go. > > Note: in the book the Old Myth which was discussed > at the conference, > I was very heavily (and critically) attacked. I love > that, provided > you have an opportunity to reply, on a plan of > equality and in your > terms. You would expect I would have sometime been > invited to have my > opportunity to rebut those criticism? Never. If my > English is not > good enough, let me repeat it in several languages: > Never. Jamais, > Jamas, Mai. Alan Freeman repeatedly told me that I > would have been > welcome to discuss the TSS, in their own terms of > course, not in > mine. To express my views about marx was not anymore > very productive. > To ask me to answer their criticism leaving me free > to say what *I* > thought is something they never imagined as > sensible. > > This tells all about this stream of thought. In the > book the Old Myth > my position was purported by Kliman and Carchedi in > terms which > clearly contradicts my theses, more than that > against what I have > many times said again and again. Examples: I have > NEVER said that my > criticism to Marx were minor, as Andrew says, I > think they are major, > and lead to major changes. I only said that in my > view this changes > lead to reinstate on better terms Marx's > exploitation theory. I NEVER > said, as Carchedi says about me, that there are > successive > approximations in Marx, something against which I > have battled all my > life. I taleked about what Rubin called the "method > of comparison", > giving quotes from Marx's Capital I, and I insisted > again and again > (contrary to what Carchedi says about me) that this > method involves a > comparison with a situation which is fundamental and > express real > magnitudes in capitalism. But it seem that what they > want for (their > interpretation of) Marx and themselves has not to be > allowed to > others: a fair representation of what you want to > criticize. > > So, you see, I very much like to discuss with > Ernesto, though I > disagree with a lot of what he says about marx, > likely 93%, but I > have found completely useless to discuss with (most, > not all) TSS > people as long as they do not accept that, before > than answers, > questions may be different among us, and methods, > and styles of > thought, and that respect has to be granted not in > words but in > practice for ALL, within and outside Marxism (what > they often says > about Sraffa, to say one thing, is ridicolous: the > more so for those > of us who were serious enough to go to Cambridge and > try to > understand what really Sraffa thought about Marx). > > riccardo > > > > At 8:33 -0500 15-02-2004, gerald_a_levy wrote: > >Hi Phil: > > > >There was a conference in Rome last year, > organised, I think, by Laboratorio > >per la Critical Sociale. Ernesto Screpanti's paper > was entitled > >'Value and Exploitation: > >A Counterfactual Approach'. From the first > paragraph > >:.. Cavallaro's appeal to beware of mystifying > labour values lets us > >hope that the > >search can proceed along correct lines today, > avoiding certain > >scholastic forcings > >which we have witnessed in the past, although the > interventions of Carchedi, > >Freeman and Kliman seem to want to kill this hope > at birth. > >This could well elicit a response. > > > >Thanks for the information. I don't think anyone > -- and perhaps least > >of all, Ernesto -- would fault the author for > responding to "Value and > >Exploitation: A Counterfactual Approach." There > is a question, > >though, about _how_ to respond. > > > >Do you think that Ernesto has been spreading "Lies, > Damned Lies" about > >Marx? > > > >Would you agree that there should have been another > title selected for the > >Kliman paper? > > > >In solidarity, Jerry > > > -- > > Riccardo Bellofiore > Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche > "Hyman P. Minsky" > Università di Bergamo > Via dei Caniana 2 > I-24127 Bergamo, Italy > e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it > direct +39-035-2052545 > secretary +39-035 2052501 > fax: +39 035 2052549 > homepage: > http://www.unibg.it/dse/homepage/bellofiore.htm > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 19 2004 - 00:00:02 EST