From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun Sep 03 2006 - 14:52:09 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? No, I am only saying that I would not _highlight_ the use of the v = 0 assumption at this time. My criticism -- expressed frequently on this list in the past, and echoed independently by Paul B -- for using this assumption still holds. > Your beef is only with the TSSI wording of statements on pluralism. I also object to dogmatism. > 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. Well, of course, I have other criticisms. For instance, I think that the Kliman-McGlone article on the transformation clearly misstates Marx's position on what can cause a change in prices of production. Here I agree with Fred's criticism, expressed on this list in a previous year. At the end of the day, since they have _not_ used Marx's conception of what can cause a change in PoP, this means that _if you accept their perspective_ they have "improved" upon Marx's understanding of PoP. Of course, they won't say that because to do so would contradict a major claim that they make: i.e. that they have demonstrated that Marx's theory of the transformation of prices into PoP is internally consistent and not logically flawed. Yet, they can't have it both ways: either they have "improved" Marx or their perspective is mistaken. > ... just as strange someone with a heart condition > spending the summer alone on the waters). Your concern about my health is touching and -- as with the rest of your post -- obviously well-intentioned and sincere. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT