From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sat Sep 02 2006 - 17:01:16 EDT
If I were to respond in published form to certain perspectives expressed by advocates of the TSSI of Marx's value theory, it would not highlight their use of the V = 0 assumption -- an assumption which they attempted to _impose_ upon Marx's theory in an effort (ironically) to defend it from the critique of Steedman et al. (The source of that assumption in the debates in recent decades on Marx's value theory can be traced back, btw, to '3' in 'Appendix D' of Sraffa's _Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities_ [CUP, p. 94]). Rather, I would reply to two recently-expressed perspectives: Firstly, I would subject Alan Freeman's perspective on pluralism (published at the New SPACE site: http://www.new-space.mahost.org/freeman.html) to critique. His conception that "pluralism is about ideas, not people" is, in my view, one-sided and _anti_-pluralist (and, in context, apologetic): pluralism is about ideas _and_ people. If pluralism is to be _practiced_ than the Freeman conception _must_ be emphatically rejected. Imagine a feminist or an anti-racist or a humanist saying that racism or sexism or humanism was "about ideas, not people". Hard to imagine, isn't it? Imagine a _materialist_ saying that, yet that's what Freeman claims to be. Imagine someone saying "socialism is about ideas, not people". Absurd, isn't it? Secondly, I would raise (as Gary and David L have done) the question of dogmatism as it relates to the TSSI. I would focus, I think, on the transformation and perversion of the 11th thesis on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only *interpreted* the world, in various ways: the point, however, is to *change it" into: "The economists have changed Marx, in various ways: the point is to interpret him -- correctly." Is there any better example showing the meaning of dogmatism in the history of Marxism? In this new slogan -- what I call the "dogmatic thesis" -- "the point" is no longer to interpret and change _the world_, now it is to interpret _Marx_ "correctly". There is thus a change in focus from the _subject_ of "the world" to Marx's thought (which, by any standard, is only one small part of that larger subject). And, instead of _changing_ the subject (the world), the focus becomes merely hermeneutic (interpretation). I think I would also highlight how _none_ of the other advocates of the TSSI have challenged Freeman on his one-sided and erroneous conception of pluralism _or_ Kliman on the dogmatic thesis: this is symptomatic in my view of an unprincipled combination and a degenerate and disingenuous research program and agenda. I would not submit such a contribution to _COPE_, of course. A more appropriate forum, though, might be _Post-Autistic Economics Review_ http://www.paecon.net since these questions are very much related to the concerns of that journal. Please do note that there is not a single word above about the personalities of Freeman and Kliman: all criticism above is directed at their stated and published perspectives. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT