From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Sep 03 2006 - 15:01:11 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. OK > > 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. So do I. But this is no reason to doubt that they would publish criticisms of their interpretations. As far as I can see, they have welcomed and responded to all published criticisms of TSSI. So your jabs at their editorial integrity remain mean spirited and baseless, as Gary has gently reminded you. And I not so gently. > 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. Fred himself emphasizes that making Marx's theory defensible requires some reconstruction of his work. TSSI may argue that this reconstruction is minor, and saves what is really important to Marx. So they remain faithful to Marx. > 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. Or brought out what was implicit in Marx or even said in some places but forgotten in other contexts. Kliman insists that he is looking for the interpretation of Marx that makes Capital as coherent as possible as a whole. That said, I don't agree with Fred's or TSSI's understanding of the transformation problem. I have proposed the inverse transformation problem But that I have differences with TSSI on this issue does not mean that they have not made contributions and that they cannot be trusted as editors. That is the fight you wanted to start, and it had no place on this list. > 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. Well sorting out contradictory or vague statements or supplying missing premises can be both an interpretation of Marx and an improvement on him. Because what guides the reading and reconstruction is generosity in interpreting him. I don't think Fred would disagree with this. He has openly said that Marx should never have talked about double divergence. Which he did twice as Allin and I have noted. I noted the second quote from TSV. > >> ... 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. You started this fight with TSSI though none of them is on this list. Your behavior is weird as is sailing alone if you have a heart condition. Rakesh > >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT