From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 11:23:57 EDT
In a sense, Fred, this was not already there in Shaikh 1974 or the like, without the excessive stress on the non-equilibrium etc.? The TSSI claims that there is no convergence to the Sraffian solution but I doubt that, it seems to me that (as the the Austrian Mises would do: he too was critical of equilibrium theorizing!) they simply say that the conditions may change between one period and another. If one wants to interpret Marx "correctly" should work directly on the German, and do a true hermeneutical work. Those who have done that certainly do not come out with ONE Marx to be put to test, and not a finished business for certain. So Kliman has to resort to a peculiar, disputable hermeneutical criterion, by the Neoclassical Stigler. This becomes dogmatic as soon as that criterion is put outside discussion. rb At 11:03 -0400 30-08-2007, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: >Jerry, I think where Kliman (and the TSSI in general) has advanced >Marxian theoryis that they have challenged the dominant interpretation >that Marx's theory is based on simultaneous determination (of input >prices and output prices and the rate of profit), and suggested an >alternative "temporal" determination. I don't agree with them in some >respects, but I think that >this is a crucial issue to raise, and they have been the ones to raise it. > >=============== > >Fred: > >Well, I don't think that raising a "crucial issue" is in itself an advance >in Marxian theory. The question is whether you or others accept the >specific answers and alternatives that they have offered. Simply stating >truisms about the need for non-linear dynamic theory isn't by itself an >advance in theory. Kliman and Freeman are good in terms of "talking the >talk" about the need for this but "where is the beef"? > >In any event - as Kliman himself highlights - their analysis is limited >essential to hermeneutics, especially hermeneutic issues associated with >interpreting Marx's quantitative theory. > >The huge departure that Kliman makes from Marx can be seen in his slogan: >for Marx, "the point" was to understand and change the world; for Kliman >"the point" is to "interpret Marx correctly". The first is a scientific >stance, the later is an appropriate stance for dogmatists. > >In solidarity, Jerry -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Hyman P. Minsky" Università di Bergamo Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it direct +39-035-2052545 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT