From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Sep 03 2006 - 13:24:00 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]). So, Jerry, you are admitting that you have no other basis for criticism of the TSSI interpretation of Marx? Your beef is only with the TSSI wording of statements on pluralism. Is there anyone else interested in this other than you? Many scholars are actually interested in the TSSI interpretation of Marx. Mongiovi's and Laibman's charges of dogmatism follow from substantive, though in my opinion unpersuasive, criticisms of the TSSI interpretation of Marx and their framework for research. Let's say two issues are the analytical importance of comparative statics and the question of the rate of accumulation. Your charge of dogmatism does not strike at important problems in their actual interpretation of Marx--except of course for the v=0 assumption, an assumption on which their interpretation does not necessarily depend. Neither Mongiovi nor Laibman thinks this is an important criticism. There is also no one on this list who does not think that there are better and worse interpretations of Marx, and no one believes that that effort should not be expended on that determination; that TSSI people believe this too does not distinguish them from any other group of Marxist scholars, though it seems to distinguish them from you, Jerry Levy, the solitary sailor (your obsessions on this list with Kliman who is not on this list is just as strange someone with a heart condition spending the summer alone on the waters). At any rate, that the editors declare that CoPE will be open to the development of TSSI work does not mean that it will be closed to TSSI criticism and other kinds of work. Gary for example doesn't think that CoPE would be closed to his criticisms. But then he has an actual analytical beef with TSSI. As does Ajit. Your whole criticism of TSSI, as usual, is unpersuasive and discloses a motive of personal vengeance. I also very much doubt that anyone would be interested in your criticism of TSSI views on pluralism, but be true to your words-- submit your criticism to Post Autistic Economics. Yours, Rakesh ps since you want to be moderator for life, I think you should attend to my concerns about the Science and Society exchange. I did bring Crotty into the discussion of Trigg's understanding of how profit influences investment; and I did satirize the idea that crises and class antagonisms can always be overcome by capitalists luxuriating ever more fulsomely; and I did say that Trigg had not theorized any limits on the rise in s/v which results from autonomous increases in luxury spending and I did say all this in clear prose as Andrew understood me and responded here. If scholars can get away with appropriating ideas expressed on OPE-L without acknowledgement, then fellow members of OPE-L will be less likely to engage in debate here. This appropriation is an active threat to this list, and Stavros and David Laibman have not responded to my complaints. So please do your self appointed job.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT