From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sat Mar 17 2007 - 17:15:10 EDT
> The assumption being made in TSSI is that the lynchpin of bourgeois > economics is the idea of self-equilibrating markets, and that this idea > makes any sensible understanding of capitalist economies impossible. Hi Jurriaan: That's certainly not the lynchpin of Keynesian economics which rejects Say's Law and hence the self-adjustment mechanisms of the "classics". Yet, it is true that Keynesianism isn't inherently a dynamic theory. In any event, recall that TSS aims to be an interpretation of Marx. It focuses thus, not on "understanding capitalist economies" but on interpreting Marx. > Ergo, if you attack and remove the idea of self-equilibrating markets, > then a more sensible understanding becomes possible. A "more sensible understanding" _of Marx_, you mean? > But the problem is that the > notion of self-equilibrating markets is deeply ingrained, it is a dogma > upheld even when it flies in the face of the facts, or is shown to be > theoretically incoherent. As Keynes showed long ago. > So what do you do then? Well what you do is counterpose to it another > economics with a different label, "non-equilibrium economics" and you have > to ram that home to people or at least impress them with it. You have to > tell them what they don't want to hear, and you might have to repeat > yourself. And that may seem tedious. Tedious, perhaps; pretentious (when it is presented in a certain way), yes. [I think that was suggested also by Riccardo the other day.] There are many advocates of non-equilibrium economics -- primarily working *outside* of a Marxian paradigm. I'm going to tell you what you don't want to hear, though. I'm going to repeat it over and again -- TSS claims to be an _interpretation of Marx_ not an advance in dynamic theory. More to the point -- *when and where have they presented a dynamic model that makes a "sensible understanding of capitalist economies" possible? * Kliman gets in a huff if you even suggest that he has presented a "model" -- he prefers the term "illustrations". Hermeneutics is their focus, not understanding actual capitalist economies. [NB: there are some exceptions: e.g. some of the writings in recent years of Carchedi and Giussani. When I speak about TSST I am most often referring to the writings on theory of Freeman and Kliman -- their most vocal spokespeople.] The TSST advocates (sometimes) say very sensible things about temporalism and non-equilibrium theory. But, they are prisoners to their own effort to interpret Marx "correctly". Let me ask you (or anyone else): *where* have they actually developed dynamic theory? I.e. where have they moved beyond truisms and assertions and walked the walk in terms of presenting a *meaningful* dynamic model which allows for a better comprehension of capitalism? Until they become surgically separated from Marx at the hip, they will not be able to do this, imo. The reason for this is very simple. While I think it's true that Marx could be said to have a temporal and dynamic understanding of capitalism, he did not present what our generation would call a dynamic model. Can Marx's thought be made compatible with a formal dynamic model? Perhaps, but that -- if successful -- would be a *reconstruction* of Marx's thought. And that's not something that the TSSTers are ready to concede. [NB: In my view "simultaneism" is also *clearly* a *reconstruction* of Marx's thought. But, in opposing the reconstruction of the "simultaneists" the TSS school have invented their _own_ theory. If they were to admit that and get off of their high "Copernican" horse "defending Marx" then dialogue with them could progress.] Although he seemed to have toyed with the idea, my view is that Marx understood that there are too many variables to allow for a formal, mathematical presentation of his entire social theory. His theory, in other words, was an *open* one rather than a closed, determanistic one. His concern was not primarily quantitative or formal: he understood that there are uncertainties related to capitalism that arise (not because of a lack of information or theoretical understanding but) because of the inherent nature of capitalist production. Formal deterministic models (TSST or otherwise) do not work well for presenting his perspectives. For Marx, the dynamic of capitalism was logical but multi-sided, messy and unpredictable; for TSST the logic of capitalism can be formally presented. On this point, I think that Marx was right. > They would argue (1) that if only "a small proportion of economists and > graduate students know or care what the "transformation problem" or the > "Okishio Theorem" is" - I don't think it's true - the reason is that these > items were previously taken as convincing proof that Marx's economics is a > dead duck, I do wish we would all "get real". Not only don't most economists know what the TP or the Okishio Theorem is, but they have very little comprehension of the history of economic thought in general. Most economists can't even intelligently discuss the history of mainstream economics or methodological principles associated with marginalist theory. The history of economics itself and methodology (rather than merely Marxian thought ) is taken to be a dead duck. One thing they *can* understand, though, is *numbers*: hence a desire by some Marxians to *translate* Marx's propositions into the language of economics (which includes both linear and non-linear formalizations). A lot is lost in the translation, imo. In this sense, I think that from a history of thought perspective the TSST is simply a special case of quantitative Marxism which historically evolved out of "algebraic Marxism". While they like to talk about the need for dynamic theory, they present us with simple corn models or models which assume v = 0 or other singularly uninteresting and unrealistic "illustrations" of what is taken to be Marx's theory. Like many other Marxians, I originally looked hopefully and sympathetically at what they identified as their project -- especially the need for non-linear and temporalist theory. Indeed, I knew, respected, and considered myself the friend and comrade of some TSSers for decades before this list was formed. I *wanted* them to succeed -- especially since I never identified with dualism, linear theory, or simultaneism. I listened, I asked questions, and waited. And waited. And waited. And waited. Finally I stopped waiting because I saw -- at least in the form of Freeman, Kliman, and McGlone -- that they haven't delivered what has been promised. They blow a lot of whistles and they show a lot of smoke -- and they especially like applying heat to others -- but (beyond a few generalities) where is the light? At some point they made a decision, it seems to me, to stick to simply interpreting Marx. When they did that, they closed off the most interesting and promising possible avenues for developing Marxian theory, imo. I take no joy in writing this. I would have much preferred a different outcome. > (2) If you want to revive Marxian economics, then you have to do it by > solving the core problems that caused it to be discredited in popular > opinion - "Popular opinion"? That is the kind of out-of-touch statement that I've been critical of. The "popular opinion" about Marx and Marxism hasn't been shaped to *any* significant degree by the debates among economists about Marx's theory. The public doesn't have an obsession (of knowledge about) the "transformation problem" ; most non-Marxian *economists* don't have the faintest clue what it means! -- it is a *Marxian* obsession. If it wasn't for *Marxians* how often do you think the TP would be mentioned? > the task of the intellectual is to solve the most difficult > abstract and theoretical problems which are at the foundations of the > whole theoretical edifice. You have to defeat the critics at their best, > i.e. > you have to take the most substantive criticisms and show that they can be > rebutted successfully. You have to confront *both* the best and the worst arguments (and everything in the middle) advanced by others. Certainly, Marx didn't focus only on the "best" arguments made by political economists; genuine and thorough critique requires the critique of *all*. > As a sort of analogy, TSSI supporters suggest that > economists travelled along a road and they took a wrong turn at a certain > point, ending up in a place where they don't really know where they are > anymore, and then the task is to route them back to the point where they > took the wrong turn, and point them to the right direction. It's a traffic > control operation. A traffic control operation? If we are to take that analogy literally that would make the TSST leaders the Traffic Police! In any event, there isn't one fork in the road, there are many. E.g. in their quantitative determinism and their research focus on hermeneutics (expressed infamously in the "1st thesis on Marxian Economics") I think they took a wrong turn long before they ever got to the issues that they see as important. > You are partly correct and partly wrong about the reasons why Marxism was > discredited. People accept and reject ideas for all sorts of reasons, good > ones and bad ones or no reason at all. But an intellectual focuses on the > good reasons and the best reasons. I don't agree. An intellectual looks at *all* of the reasons -- the good, the bad, and the ugly. Some brief points on the rest of what you wrote: > Marx is still important to us because the road to hell is paved with > capitalist good intentions. Capitalists can have very good intentions, at > least as long as you work for them and they don't work for you. Otherwise > they would not be capitalists. I guess that depends on what you mean by "good intentions": they seek to maximize their individual rate of profits. I wouldn't call that "good intentions" or "bad intentions"; it is simply behavior in accord with their essential character as capitalists. > You often cannot fault their intentions, but it is the aggregate > effects of what happens that are of concern. "Micro" effects are important as well as aggregate effects. (btw, there is a moral question there.) > I do need more time, I just haven't enough time to do all I want to do. It > is not my intention to "take a position" on TSSI, my intention is to learn > from it what can be learnt from it. You have to skip the Marxist rhetoric, > and concentrate on the content. The rhetoric is part of the content. The rhetoric affects the content. To understand their theory, you have to comprehend both. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT